Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices. The most significant shift was in 2020, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barret. Ginsburg was one of the most liberal justices.
Supreme court justice’s are non-partisan and don’t represent a political party, but they generally reflect the beliefs and ideology of the president who appoints them in their interpretation of the role of the constitution. e.g. originalism vs. a living document.
> Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
That’s a good question, that would be a helpful resource. This seems like a good place to start:
I’m aware of her comments on Roe vs. Wade, I just didn’t think it was relevant. She was a liberal justice who was replaced with a conservative justice.
I’m curious what her stance would be if she was still on the court. Despite her comments, I don’t believe she would have overturned it.
> Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices
(As one of my teachers once said to me) I was expecting a slightly fully answer :)
(Disclosure: I don't live in the US)
Don't we at least have to look at who was replaced and what their voting record was?
It seems simplistic to say that any justice appointed by a President in party X is strictly supportive of X's policy. What would that mean anyway, since from the outside it seems there are a fairly broad range of policies and view on major issues inside each of the two parties...?
In the UK there's TheyWorkForYou[0] where you can search for your political representative and get a quick overview on how they vote by policy area, and a deeper list of voting record on individual votes grouped by topic. You can find MPs inside one party with wildly different voting records. Is there something like this for the US Supreme Court? If not, why not?
I know it's fictional, but I'm thinking of The West Wing S05E17 "The Supremes" and the scene towards the end in the Roosevelt Room[1] in which it turns out that pigeonholing people isn't quite as straightforward as we might think.
> Don't we at least have to look at who was replaced and what their voting record was?
Yes. Trump appointed three justices who replaced Ginsberg (strong liberal), Kennedy (moderate, lean conservative), and Scalia (strong conservative). All three of Trump's appointments are more conservative than Kennedy.
It is true that the SCOTUS tends to be less ideologically rigid than the other major institutions and there are plenty of 9-0 decisions. But the West Wing episode is fictional. It is the sort of thing that people with were true. For the most controversial topics (abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, election policy), the justices are much more aligned with their associated parties. This is because they are selected based on their beliefs on these topics. As in, conservative administrations literally develop a list of justices that they know have opinions about various critical topics and use that to filter their selection options. And liberal administrations do the same.
> All three of Trump's appointments are more conservative than Kennedy
Would it be hopelessly optimistic to suggest one might want to qualify that and say that "based on their previous decisions they appear to be more conservative than Kennedy"?
> SCOTUS tends to be less ideologically rigid than the other major institutions
Yet even in here, commentary on appointments to SCOTUS appears to show a fair degree of ideological rigidity.
> the justices are much more aligned with their associated parties
As I said before, at least from the outside it looks like there is a fair degree of non-alignment within the parties on major topics.
Under Trump’s presidency, since he appointed three justices. The most significant shift was in 2020, when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away and was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barret. Ginsburg was one of the most liberal justices.
Supreme court justice’s are non-partisan and don’t represent a political party, but they generally reflect the beliefs and ideology of the president who appoints them in their interpretation of the role of the constitution. e.g. originalism vs. a living document.
> Is there somewhere one can track which side (although I hate to use that phrase) has had a majority over which period?
That’s a good question, that would be a helpful resource. This seems like a good place to start:
https://www.allsides.com/blog/how-supreme-court-ideology-has...