What is going on with Justice Kagan? She seems to side with the Roberts side in cases.

[Justice wanted]

This is the latest example of my question:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002338027

[WI_DEM]

3. So then, oh wise one, why did Sonia Sotomayor vote opposite of Kagan?

She,too, was nominated by Obama.

The thing about Supreme Court nominees is that you don't know for sure how they will always vote. Kennedy was disappointed by Byron White--who turned out to be more conservative than anybody thought. Ike by William Brennan and Earl Warren (calling Warren his worst decision). Nixon by Harry Blackmun (the author of the roe v wade ruling). Ford by John Paul Stevens, who evolved into a pretty consistent liberal--and Bush by David Souter, who also turned out to be well to the left of what was thought.

I think the jury is still out on where overall Kagan will vote. My guess is that she will vote more often with the so-called 'liberal bloc' more than with the more conservative bloc.

[MineralMan]

4. Feh! nt

[great white snark]

5. You're right, that is a simple answer.

Simplistic and inaccurate. Read up on all his judicial appointees not just the SC.

[Arkana]

24. This is crap. If it were the case, Sonia Sotomayor would do the same thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Should she decide on the merits of a case, arguments presented and her understanding of the law

or just vote by rote in opposition to Justice Roberts?

Personally, I don't see a problem with her decision in the case at the link. I can understand a dissenting opinion that chooses to err on the side of constitutional caution but nothing in Justice Kagan's concurrence in this case upsets me. On the contrary, it bolsters her standing as an independent thinker for the upcoming ACA mandate challenges.

[Justice wanted]

6. I'm just saying the decision is a bad one. It goes against principles of innocent until proven

guilty. What this is basically saying is that If you are even suspected of one crime and read your right than suspected in another crime than you must be guilty because you where a suspect in the first crime.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Prisoners lose lots of rights

You lose the right to be politically active. You lose the right to not have your living space searched without warrant. You lose the right to not have your phone calls listened in on or your mail read. You lose the right to vote. You wake up when others tell you. You eat when they tell you. You can only go outside when they allow you. You can only own what they say you can own. There are rules for watching TV.

[Justice wanted]

8. But innocent until proven guilty is a right no one loses. IF they are guilty of one crime DOES NOT

mean they are guilty of all crimes. The ideas are in our constitution. So what you are saying is if I steel a loaf of bread and serving time for that crime and the police suspect me of steeling a TV they have a right to accuse me and I have no rights to an lawyer or remaining silent for that second crime?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. They are innocent until proven guilty as their sentences are not being extended without trial.

However, if you're arguing they ought not lose *any* rights you're kicking against the briars.

So what you are saying is if I steel a loaf of bread and serving time for that crime and the police suspect me of steeling a TV they have a right to accuse me and I have no rights to an lawyer or remaining silent for that second crime?

No. Neither I nor Justice Kagan made such an assertion. What Justice Kagan said -- and I agree with -- is: if the guards suspect you of a crime while you are in prison and they interrogate you and you admit to the crime the confession is admissable in court even if they did not Mirandize you.

Miranda rights were instituted because people had no prior knowledge of their rights. The point of Miranda wasn't to create legal hoops for the police to jump through. Once the cops read them to someone that person can't just say, "Oh, I didn't think they were serious." Once Mirandized the suspect has the responsibility to exercise their rights on their own initiative. If they blab, it's on them. If they neglect to call a lawyer, it's on them. It's not like the police have to hand-hold someone and assign an attorney for therm if they neglect/refuse to state they want a lawyer.

[Justice wanted]

10. I'm sorry I have to disagree with you! Miranda Rights should be provide EVERYTIME a

cop investigates/interview someone under suspection.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. How about search warrants?

You don't need a search warrant to search a prisoner's cell.

[Justice wanted]

14. Within reason yes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. That's a tad vague.

Not to mention without precedent. Cells can be randomly searched and they can be specifically searched when there is suspicion of contraband or a crime. Under what legal theory would evidence from a warrantless cell search NOT be admissable?

[joeybee12]

12. I don't think she does...and most of the time it's politicking on the court...

She may have thought that since even wihtout her vote the right wing element of the court was going to prevail, she wanted to buddy up to Roberts and the other scum and maybe convince them to side with her in anohter case...we like to think the SCOTUS is some higher authority that doesn't get involved in this sort of thing, but it always does.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Why would you suggest such a thing?

Why impugn her integrity so needlessly?

Even reasonable people can disagree. I don't understand the need to presume dark, nefarious, cowardly motives behind every action. It would be tantamount to suggesting you just don't like her because of your inherent male-bias against strong, independent women. It's better for me to respect you as a person and accept your opinion as your own decided by your conscience. I can still argue with you. We can still trade point and counter-point.

[joeybee12]

16. I'd respond to your post but it's so over-the-top

I don't see the point...and since I mentioned they all do it (with exception, probably, Ginsburg) where do you think i impugn her...do you have any idea how courts work...do you know they compare notes when composing decisions...it's politics, pure and simple.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. You did state rather plainly that you thought her decision was unprincipled.

I can't understand why that is necessary as opposed to simply saying reasonable people can honestly disagree.

[treestar]

21. It's you who have no idea how the courts work

and/or cynically presume no judge ever follows the law. You're the one assuming it is politics all the way, because you don't understand the law - don't even acknowledge its very existence.

[treestar]

19. Exactly, there are legal points to be made

Rather than puzzle them out, it is easier to just say "Roberts wrong." Even Roberts may get routine cases correct.

[Princess Turandot]

15. In last year's term, Kagan & Ginsburg *disagreed* on non-unanimous case judgments by 17%..

Kagan & Roberts disagreed on non-unanimous case judgments by 53%.
Breyer & Roberts? 52%

Kagan disagreed with the loons>
Scalia - 53%
Thomas - 60%
Alito - 57%

How about Breyer & Ginsburg? They disagreed 29% of the time.

SCOTUSBlog compiles a wealth of SCOTUS statistics going back to 1995. The 2010 term report is here:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SB_OT10_stat_pack_final.pdf

Scroll down to page 20. Make sure it's the non-unanimous case one, as the full case one is right before it.

[SidDithers]

20. Facts are good...

well done

Sid

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Thank-you! n/t

[Justice wanted]

23. Thank you for these facts. It just seems in cases where you'd expect her to side one way and she

goes another is just unsettling to me. Like in this case. Again looking through all of this it does put things in presepctive HOWEVER in this case I still believe the ruling was wrong. I believe we are going down a slippery slope and this is a tiny step closer.