A Court Without A Center: Kagan Laments Loss Of Swing Justice

Kagan was speaking at a Princeton University conference for women and observed:

“It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way. That’s enabled the court to look so it was not all by one side or another and it was indeed impartial and neutral and fair. And it’s not so clear that I think going forward that sort of middle position — it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it.”

If Kagan believes that it is a good thing for the Court to be more centrist, one would expect her to move more to the center on issues. Instead she seems to want to continue to vote in a left block but have another justice keep the Court in the center.

Notably, Sotomayor said she “agreed wholly” with Kagan’s statement and also wanted someone to blunt the voting on the right and her own voting on the left.

237 thoughts on “A Court Without A Center: Kagan Laments Loss Of Swing Justice”


    Senators supporting Kavanaugh represent states composing only 42.2% of nation.

    Senators opposing Kavanaugh represent states composing 55.8% of nation.

    According to an NPR / PBS Newshour poll, support for Kavanaugh is only 36% while disapproval of Kavanaugh is 47%.

    These numbers illustrate what I asserted in an earlier comment: ‘Kavanaugh represents an aging minority of mostly White Americans. A conservative minority on the court will render that institution out of step with mainstream America.


    1. LOL! Yeah, how’s that mob rule working out for you and your ilk so far?

      we will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning. Donald Trump

      Thanks to the Democrat’s disastrous handling of the Judge Kavanaugh confirmation process, the bored Republicans and Independents are no longer bored heading into the midterms. 🙂

    2. “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court nominee’s statement. Thirty percent (30%) disagree, while 14% are undecided.”

    3. Peter Hill – first Hillary wants to change the Electoral College and now the Washington Post wants to change the Constitution, too? Are those rumors about the WaPo being an arm of the DNC true?

      1. Change ‘what’, Paul? You’re starting to sound like Allan.

        But the Electoral College is certainly out of sync with America. Millennials are the first generation in U.S. history to see ‘two’ presidents elected after losing the Popular Vote. ‘Two’ presidents within a span of only 16 years! That obviously suggests that something isn’t working. Twice in 16 years the people’s will was disregarded. Though in all fairness to Bush, he lost the Popular Vote by a much smaller margin that Trump.

        1. Neither Albert Gore nor Hellary won a majority vote. While we’re at it, different states have electorates of different dimensions and also have different voting regulations.

          You cannot have national popular vote without federally-administered elections, which in turn generates risks which are currently contained.

          NB, the set of people bleating about this intersects a great deal with the set of people maniacally opposed to ballot security measures. Funny thing about that.

          1. T to the P

            Wrongo in the Congo. Hillary won almost 3 million more of the ‘popular’ voters. Trump won by 60,000+/- votes in states that gave him the electoral college. Sober up dude.

            1. Issac said: Trump won…

              And now he has secured 2 new justices on the Supreme Court. You’re welcome! 🙂

          2. Tabarrok, it sounds like ‘ballot security measures’ are code for ‘voter suppression tactics’. Did Frank Luntz develop that term in one of his focus groups?

            1. Tabarrok, it sounds like ‘ballot security measures’ are code for ‘voter suppression tactics’.

              Do you mean like when the New Black Panthers are standing in front of a polling station holding night stick? That voter suppression?

        2. “You’re starting to sound like Allan.”

          Without reading what Paul said I immediately realized that comment had to be right and then I looked at it and saw Paul was right on target. Our resident Shill is spoiled rotten and believes he should get everything he wants paid for by someone else. He must have (had) a government job or something similar. Trump could have won the popular vote as well if that is what the Constitution called for. It didn’t. Trump won.

          In the meantime it appears one of Trump’s present “leading” contenders is the sleazeball porno lawyer Avenatti. That is where the party of JFK and FDR has descended to. Peter is anxiously waiting for a porno lawyer to take over the Presidency. Maybe Peter wants free porn.

          In any event, unemployment is at 3.7 and the next quarter’s GDP seems to be on track for somewhere around 4.7. Kavanaugh almost certainly will be confirmed and Peter will probably start bedwetting again.

          1. Allan, all you do is regurgitate talking points from right-wing media. Whether they’re relevant or not seems to make no difference. It was this tendency I alluded to when telling Paul he sounds like ‘you’.

            1. PH, have you seen you therapist for your passive-aggressive personality disorder?

              You can learn coping skills to help you manage that….or you could just believe in God and become balanced like the rest of us


            2. ” all you do is regurgitate talking points from right-wing media.”

              Really Peter? Is that why when I did a comparison between JFK and I think Trump you couldn’t respond? How about when I explained the U 6 to you and how to read a simple graph? On and on I have listened to regurgitation of propaganda but that came from you silly man. You have no in depth knowledge. You have no principles. You have no character.

              You are a fool and a Shill. Based on some of the things you say, you are a liar as well. l

              1. Allan, you can’t respond to any ‘comment’ i make without communist paranoia or stupid right-wing talking points. Did it ever occur to you that no one wants to argue with a ridiculous old fool??

                1. Peter, I didn’t even mention communists in this past statement though I did call you a fool because that is something anyone can see. I don’t know what you think is so right wing about believing in the Constitution or in classical economics. Maybe you should tell us. I believe that the legislature is the one that is supposed to pass laws and if something is unconstitutional one passes a constitutional amendment. What is wrong with that?

            3. Voter suppression today is a near myth though I can imagine some people trying to do such a thing. However, that can easily be stopped. When I go into Walmart and charge $5 worth of goods they ask for my picture ID along with the credit card. That simple ID protects us from fraud.

              Some say voter fraud doesn’t exist, but it has been demonstrated all over by multiple people. Anyone that wants to see examples of voter fraud can go to projectveritas.com and see their many videos demonstrating voter fraud. Anone that still doesn’t believe in its existence can look at a number of states that took notice of those videos and changed their laws. What we need is all states to do the same.

              People like Peter are lawless and only look at the short term. That is a foolish thing to do. We have a lot in this country so that means we have a lot to lose when stupid people advocate stupid things.

              1. Allan – why are those dead people suddenly registering to vote? Why are those people are registering to vote from an address that doesn’t exist? Enquiring minds want to know.

                1. ” why are those dead people suddenly registering to vote?”

                  Paul isn’t the left the culture of death? 🙂

    4. That’s the point, isn’t it? When a man’s name is dragged through the mud, to diminish his reputation and lower his esteem in the court of public opinion. You must be disappointed that it only resulted in the numbers you cite..surely the hope was that it would be much lower.

  2. Dear Justices Kagan and Sotomayor:

    Your rulings should never incorporate your personal partisan politics. You do not make the law, you apply the law as it was written. Not how you imagine the writers actually would intend it nowadays, but how it is written. If you do not like how the law is written, then let me acquaint you with the legislative branch, whose job is to make the law.

    If all of you Justices would please stop voting along your party lines, and simply apply the law, that would be great.

    We do not have the separation of powers, and the Constitution, so that nine unelected, lifetime appointed people can legislate from the bench.

    1. That is probably correct and Kavanaugh is likely to become a “swing” vote as well. AS I said before, from what I have read 25% of “conservative picks” have moved in the Liberal direction. Amy Barrett probably is a much stauncher conservative. If Trump gets another vacant position I would like it to be one that firmly accepts a textual approach to the Constitution. I would not concern myself with what one feels about Roe vs Wade. I want our government to start working again and that means its functioning is not based on executive order and not based on legislation passed by the Supreme Court. We have a legislature and for government to function effectively they must act and for that to happen the other two bodies need to remain mostly silent. The executive branch can actively promote legislation but it should not be able to pass legislation..

      Robert’s decision on Obamacare IMO was wrong. Since that particular word change to a tax was essential to the bill, the entire bill should have been returned to Congress. I don’t know if Kavanaugh would have changed the penalty to a tax but he may not have returned the entire bill back to Congress.

  3. It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.

    This is judicial activism babble. The center of what? Each of the 9 justices were nominated and confirmed based on their judicial philosophy and record, by a President and Senate, that was a reflection of our country at that time. They get on the court and they drop anchor. The constitution is their limits. Their philosophy and record relative to the constitution is the chain they have to play with. Individually, the more activist the justice, the more chain they believe they have to work with. Collectively, the center will be reflected by the intersection of where the majority swings. If Kagan and Sotomayor are looking for the center, or if the 4 “liberal” justices on the court find themselves unable to see where the 5 “conservative” justices (center) are anchored, they are welcome to pull up anchor and go find them. If they decide to remain fixed, then they will find themselves consistently writing minority opinions.

  4. In her comments regarding her decision to vote yes on the Kavanaugh nomination Susan Collins pointed out that the three justices who wrote the majority opinion in Casey were all appointed by Republican presidents who wanted conservative justices on thr court.

    So I guess can we paraphrase Forrest Gump: Justices are like a box of chocolate. You never know what you’re going to get.

  5. The left will protest against this as well:

    “NFIB Chief Economist William Dunkelberg says that a record 37% of small businesses in September ‘reported raising overall compensation in hopes of hiring and retaining needed employees.’” _WSJ

  6. It’s been an extremely important thing for the court that in the last 40 years, starting with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, there has been a person who found the center, where people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.

    This is judicial activist babble. The center of what? Each of these justices were nominated and confirmed based on their judicial philosophy and record, by a President and Senate, all of which was a reflection of the political mood of the country. They get on the court and drop anchor.

    1. “This is judicial activist babble.”

      That is exactly correct, Olly, toilet paper for the activists or a Constitution that can be amended. If activism on the court was expected by the founders there would be no need for the Constitutiona to provide a method for amendment.

  7. Turley can be exasperating and, as in this case, even ridiculous. “If Kagan believes that it is a good thing for the Court to be more centrist, one would expect her to move more to the center on issues.” Obviously, if Kagan were to move to the center, the court would be even less centrist unless one of the justices on the right made the equivalent move. Somehow, in his sublime fairness and impartiality, Turley almost always places the blame on the left. I appreciate the frequent updates on pc insanity. I should probably learn to ignore the rest.

    1. It shouldn’t be a left right issue. The Justices are there to interpret the law.

      What is called left/ right is actually the distinction between those that believe the Constitution is like toilet paper, to be replaced based on need which can be called legislating from the bench, or those that believe in what the Constitution says, hoping that the legislators pass legislation instead of the Supreme Court and that the Amendment process is used rather than replacing another roll of toilet paper.

      1. The entire point of having a judiciary is to interpret the written law. The difference between left and right is that the left acknowledges this, while the right pretends it isn’t so.

        1. The entire point of having a judiciary is to interpret the written law.

          All 9 justices interpret, the activists among them however simply don’t recognize they have constitutional limits.

        2. “The entire point of having a judiciary is to interpret the written law. The difference between left and right is that the left acknowledges this, while the right pretends it isn’t so.”

          You misunderstand the concepts involved. The left wishes to interpret the law based on their standards today and how they feel. That is essentially what Justice Sotomayor says to justify why she was a good candidate for the Supreme Court. I felt she might be a good candidate as a trial judge because of her rationale, but not the Supreme Court. That means one doesn’t need to ammend the Constitution. One only needs 5 members that agree on any position. That is undemocratic as they are not elected.

          The alternative is to believe in the Constitution whether or not one likes the presumed outcome. They believe they are judges not legislators and let the legislators do the legislating and let Constitutional Amendments change the Constitution.

          There is no need for disparagement on your part yyy as the difference is quite clear. What you have to do is decide whether or not you wish the Supreme Court to legislate or not. If you desire them to legislate then to you the Constitution means little more to you than a disposable document. That gets rid of the need for the ammendment process. Do your really think that is wise?

      1. That is what a non thinking approach represents. I believe Turley has always been left of center, but when the left strays too far, then from their vantage point he is on the right. Turley really hasn’t changed. It is the Democratic Party that has moved further and further to the left. JFK’s opinions of his day would today be considered on the right.

        1. allan,

          if you had to prove that bs, you’d sound as silly as Kavanaugh.

          1. I see Bill you wish to double down on your non thinking approach. That is fine with me. What you have accomplished is proving yourself to be what those others have claimed you to be.

  8. (music to tune of Go Comets Go– a high school song from Ferguson)

    Go Scotus, Go Team!
    Fight for USA!
    Keep your honor fight team fight!
    Begin with all your might, might, might might!

    Lean to the Left. Lean to the Right!
    Stand up, sit down, fight team Fight!

    Hit em high. Hit em low!
    Go Scuotus GO!

  9. I would like the supreme court decisions to be live streamed. With Brett on board, it will be interesting.

  10. Turley again proves that he is more a ringmaster of a circus than a ‘brilliant’ mind. Kagan and Sotomayor both, honestly, and openly admit their bias as well as the bias of the right; and lament the lack of a centrist vote to better reflect the demographics of the people. This is admirable. They are about to get a colleague who is a liar and has a track record of being extremely biased toward the right and power privilege. Kavanaugh will be confirmed after being investigated by an FBI that was given instructions of where to investigate and who to investigate by the Republican majority Senate. We don’t hear from the couple dozen people who shared accommodations with Kavanaugh, knew him, saw him and can attest that he was a mean drunk, a blind drunk often, etc. who lied to the people. Kagan is simply expressing the truth.

    1. Over the recent 20-30 years Kavanaugh has been visible to the public and many many individuals. What is amazing is that all of them find him to be an upstanding citizen of honorable character. We understand why many that made comments against Kavanaugh based on 30+ years ago didn’t want to sign affidavits proving anything factual that they said. They didn’t want to end up in jail for lying yet it is these storytellers that refuse to affix their signatures to affidavits that Issac wishes everyone to believe. It is totally lame but also totally consistant with Isaacs warped ideas of the law and morality.

      1. 12 years ago the ABA was at odds with Kavanaugh during his nomination/appointment to the court of appeals. They stated that he was biased to the right and confrontational. He toned it down and made the cut. This was two thirds+ of the way through that ‘exemplary’ career. During the interview, Kavanaugh went over the line in an unSCOTUS manner attacking Clinton and the Democrats in what was supposed to be an unbiased attempt at clearing the issue. Kavanaugh would be less dangerous if he were to be one of four right wing jobs against four left wing jobs, with a centrist for stabilization. That is essentially what Kagan is saying and she is spot on, regardless of whether or not she is one of the left wing jobs. What makes Kavanaugh unsuitable is that he has a reputation as a far right wing job, he was nominated by an oligarch who has benefited from being above the law, he is being pushed through by an extremely partisan Republican Senate, he has stated his preference for protecting those in power from the laws that apply to ‘everyman’, and he has not been cleared of being a liar by a reasonable FBI investigation but by an investigation tailored to the outcome desired by the oligarch in power, the Republican dominated Senate, in spite of being found unsuitable by a majority of Americans. In other words, Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material but will become a Supreme Court Judge. If this was a Democrat run event, the Republicans would be livid and out for payback, hey isn’t that how Gorsuch got in? The hypocrisy of this circus is unsurmountable.

        1. Issac, while you are dumpster diving to pick up your needed bits and pieces of trash, take note the ABA on 7/10/2018 gave Brett Kavanaugh its highest rating WQ without any abstentions and with a UNANIMOUS vote. The danger you see lies only in your stupidity that causes you an inability to grasp the basic elements of our Constitution.

          1. Allan

            12 years ago the ABA downgraded Kavanaugh for being politically biased, hard to deal with, and belligerent. He toned his bias down, adjusted his demeanor, and became a nicer guy. Then the ABA gave him the ‘highest rating’. So, before the Senate interview Kavanaugh showed some colors that bled through these 12 years of adjustments: political bias, conspiracy accusations against the Clintons, extreme levels of belligerence, skirting questions, refusing to answer simple questions, misrepresentations of acknowledged facts, no shortage of twisting and turning, and most probably some serious lying. We’ll probably never know about the lying as the FBI investigation was tailored to not include people who shared accommodations with him when he was an alleged mean drunk, blacking out on a regular basis, and a couple dozen others who knew him as a drunken horned dog. It’s not about the raging hormones and teenage alcohol abuse. It’s about the lying and placing oneself above the law. A Republican President, Republican Senate, designed the process, end of story.

            1. In today’s world judging him on his merit Kavanaugh got the highest ratings from the ABA that has a Liberal bias. I’m not sure what they were judging him on 12 years ago (or even if what you say is true) so if you would provide the ABA statement rather than a hit piece that would be helpful.

              Despite what you say and obviously the past is taken into account he still got that highest rating with an unqualified UNANIMOUS vote. That is what counts if you wish to rely on the Liberal ABA.

              You never are able to prove your case on this blog because you lack the ability to recognize the difference between opinion and proof. The same happened at the Senate hearings. Proof was not provided, but there was proof that what Ford said was erroneous especially with her own witnesses testifying against her.

            2. issac – there is always the chance that the Democrats would be stupid enough to try to impeach him if they take the House. However, they would not have the votes in the Senate to convict. So, it would be an exercise in futility. And it would just make Republicans and Independents madder.

              1. That’s why our system fails. Two examples: Trump made it to the Presidency without a majority vote and Kavanaugh made it to the SCOTUS with a compromised/designed FBI investigation and a loaded system. Somehow, politics must be taken out of the Supreme Court.

                1. issac – Hillary would have been a minority President as well. And there is no way to take politics out of anything in Congress. 😉

                2. Issac, multiple presidents made it to the Presidency without a majority vote. Get your facts straight. Kavanaugh made it to SCOTUS with one of the most if not the most comprehensive series of investigation. You are not asking for politics to be removed from the Supreme Court. You are asking for your politics to be satisfied by your pick ending up on the Supreme Court.

                  You are anti-democratic, anti-American and Anti-constitution.

    2. One can “admit” one’s own bias but not another’s. It’s basic logic, really. Try it sometime.

  11. This is a really stupid statement. The SC consists of minions who work for the competing factions w/in the plutocracy. The faction who just won is the more vicious, even more anti Constitutional faction. They are just minions who will help destroy what is left of the rule of law–all of them, including the perjury and witness tampering loving lackey who will be joining them. CORRUPTION is what binds the court together.

      1. Tab-
        If you have anything factual to bring to this discussion, I think we will all enjoy reading it.

        1. She didn’t offer anything factual. I don’t see you complaining.

          A statement like “The SC consists of minions who work for the competing factions w/in the plutocracy. ” is not factual. It is an opinion borne of a crude and stupid conception of social relations, somewhere between garage sale populism and garage sale Marxism.

      2. Jill is floating high the clouds. We can already see the effects of oxygen deprivation.

  12. So true, it is not as if the votes of the leftists weren’t always predictable. I do not think those on the left are capable of identifying neither hypocrisy nor irony.

    1. Alma

      Gotta admit that Turley knows how to make the dogs of Trump bark!

      1. BMW:

        “Gotta admit that Turley knows how to make the dogs of Trump bark!”

        Yeah, insulting people with an equal vote to yours is the best way to win them over. The Left never learns. Maybe you ought to read one of those “middle-aged white guys” for a change. You don’t lose because you’re perpetually wrong. You lose because you’re dumb:

        “THE WIND and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger. Suddenly they saw a traveller coming down the road, and the Sun said: “I see a way to decide our dispute. Whichever of us can cause that traveller to take off his cloak shall be regarded as the stronger You begin.” So the Sun retired behind a cloud, and the Wind began to blow as hard as it could upon the traveller. But the harder he blew the more closely did the traveller wrap his cloak round him, till at last the Wind had to give up in despair. Then the Sun came out and shone in all his glory upon the traveller, who soon found it too hot to walk with his cloak on.

      2. “Gotta admit that Turley knows how to make the dogs of Trump bark!”

        BillMcwilliams, if you actually followed the news and could understand the mood of the country you would note that Trump makes the media bark and the Liberals whine.

        1. Allan

          The right-wing minority supports your view. The majority of the country is moderate.

          1. The right-wing minority supports your view.

            And the left-wing minority does not. Shocker.

            The majority of the country is moderate.

            More importantly, they are not suicidal. Which is why we have President Trump. Which is why he’ll have 2 conservative justices added to the court within his first 2 years. Which is why the Left has proven they are suicidal by abandoning the bedrock security of the presumption of innocence.

            On behalf of all conservatives and sane moderates…you’re welcome.

            1. Olly

              For 25 cents I’ll guess your sex. Til then, I’ll assume there are no women in your life that you care for,

          2. Bill, my view is not what is under discussion. If you even casually glanced at history you would note how the Democratic Party has moved in a continuous leftward direction. I demonstrated this a number of threads back by doing a comparison of JFK with, I think, Trump. Do your own comparison and list the pertinent points. Discuss them rather than your vague opinions based on predigested material from websites whose existance is based on convincing relatively naive people to think a certain way.

          3. Just to point out here that the man babbling about the country being ‘moderate’ has usually been seen here peddling 9/11 truther rubbish.

            1. Every once in awhile one has to be given a chance to prove their intellectual abilities. I have opened the door for Bill m but the question is will he go through the door or slam it on his thumb?

            2. tabarrok

              The country IS moderate, and that’s why more and more people are waking up to the truth that the only way planes could fly thru the Twin Towers is if they were made out of butter.

              Here’s a news article about the event:

              Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell

              ‘We expected Eternal Paradise
              For This,’ Say Suicide Bombers

              “I was promised I would spend Eternity in Paradise,
              Being fed honeyed cakes by 67 virgins, in a tree-lined
              Garden, if only I would fly the airplane into one of the
              Twin Towers,” said Mohammed Atta, one of the
              Hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11.

                1. “Kook”

                  kooK. DSS, I am not copying what you said. Let’s see if Bill can figure out the proper word for this.

  13. “Kagan said that the loss of a middle would make the Court look too predictable and partisan.”

    I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to deal with the Constitutionality of the laws, but apparently Kagan thinks it is a part of the legislature.

    1. allan

      BK thinks the S.Ct’s function is to enable right-wing positions to become the law of the land.

      1. I guess Bill you haven’t read any of his decisions or summaries of them. He has been smack on target even in an environment where Liberal judges are sitting. I suggest you not speak and spare us words that simply do not make sense.

  14. The partisan votes were those who voted to appoint GW Bush as president. Kavenaugh’s judicial record so far shows that he is partisan to corporations over people and controlling women.

    1. More low quality talking points from you. You need to give it up. It’s a lousy avocation and Peter Hill is much better at it than you are.

      1. Sore winners are low quality commenters. bettykath is gracious in victory. Will Tabarrok be gracious in defeat?

        1. Bettykath’s never in any forum in which I’ve ever encountered her been gracious. All of her posts are readily recognizable as regurgitations of undigested talking points. Quite generally they are stupefyingly naive talking points.

          1. Given any person whosoever can “stupefy” The Wonderful Wizard of Pillory, it follows that bettykath is anything but naïve. Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “insolent”–as in the old cliché “insolent knave”.

  15. So basically what she’s saying is that she knows she’s partisan and wants some one else on the bench to rule correctly so that she doesn’t look as partisan as she really is. The same goes for Justice Sotomayor.

  16. What a pathetic, ungrateful woman. This is how she greets a new justice?
    Thankfully, we no longer have the pot smoking community organizer in the WH to appoint more legal gems like this one.

    1. Gratitude is not subject to command by any but God. You black letter blasphemer, Bragg!

      1. L4D:
        “Gratitude is not subject to command by any but God.”
        Not subject to command, maybe, but certainly subject to comment and justifiable scorn

        1. From etymonline:

          gratitude (n.) mid-15c., “good will,” from Middle French gratitude (15c.) or directly from Medieval Latin gratitudinem (nominative gratitudo) “thankfulness,” from Latin gratus “thankful, pleasing” (from suffixed form of PIE root *gwere- (2) “to favor”). Meaning “thankfulness” is from 1560s.

          Gwere is essentially the same PIE root for “Grace” meaning unmerited favor. Ms. Bragg’s reference to blushing hit the bull’s eye.

        2. Ms. Bragg had previously said, “Thankfully, we no longer have the pot smoking community organizer in the WH to appoint more legal gems like this one.”

          That is not the sort of unmerited favor for which one gives thanks to God. Instead, that is a boast masquerading as humility. Thusly her blush was Ms. Bragg’s saving grace.

  17. Trick question: Name the swing vote or votes named by a Democratic president in the past fifty years.

  18. Trick question: Name the swing vote or votes named by a Democratic president in the last fifty years.

      1. He never sat on the court and there’s no reason to believe he’d have been any more of a swing vote than was David Souter.

        1. “Named” means “nominated.” Neither named nor nominated mean confirmed. “Swing vote” necessarily presupposes a tie vote four against four on a nine member court.

          1. Diane, your logic and ability to treat a question in its entirety is in great disrepair.

Comments are closed.