Part 12: [yes, still] A Court of Shameless Partisans. (Supreme Court: How Partisan? Ideological? Activist? --with graphs!)

[Well...I, and a few others, believed that Chief Justice Roberts would want to avoid a 5-4 straight party line vote on Obamacare. And he did just that.

But now, lots of folks, including some who should know better, are claiming that the Obamacare decision shows that Roberts and his Court are not really as political as...well, as political as they really are. 

So, one more installment of "Shameless Partisans."]

The Chief Justice was strategically brilliant in the Obamacare decision. On several levels.

Constitutionally: Roberts--with the votes of the 4 other Republicans on the Court--restricted the interstate commerce power of the federal government. A huge victory for Republicans and conservatives.

Politically: He--with the votes of the 4 Democrats on the Court--upheld Obamacare (under a curious application of the the fed's taxing power). A huge victory for Democrats and liberals.

Judicially: He showed that his Court--especially he--does not simply decide cases like political partisans or ideologues.

And yes, as to that last one, he seems to have succeeded in persuading lots of people. Including, as I've already mentioned, commentators and supposed experts who really ought to know better.
[Yes Gramps, the world's a fake.]

So let's return to reality. Not contrivance, wishful thinking, or politically or partisan-motivated nonsense. Let's look at the actual record.

Here are some voting figures we've seen previously in this series. But here they are in graphs highlighting the divide between the 4 liberal/Democratic Justices and the 4 conservative/Republicans. Take a look.

(click to enlarge)

GRAPH 1

And the flipside of the same figures--just in case some of you prefer the perspective from the Democratic angle.

(click to enlarge)

GRAPH 2

No matter which way you look at it, there's a 94% difference in the voting between Court's lib-Dems and con-Repubs. That's a 94% partisan disparity in the voting average of the 4 liberal/Democratic Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Stevens-Kagan) and the voting average of the 4 conservative/Republicans (Roberts [yes Roberts!], Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).

Shameless Partisans on Obamacare, Arizona Immigration Laws, Juvenile Life Sentences, and Campaign Finance

[I am drained from the last few days of live commentary and interviews. Oh sure I enjoyed it all, but I'm mentally exhausted. So....]

In lieu of a full blown post about the Obamacare decision--and a few other biggies rendered this past week--I'm going to rely on some interviews I've done.

Readers may find that a welcome break. Especially after wading through 193 pages of the Supreme Court's Obamacare opinions! Oh, you didn't?

But a few short comments before the interview links. [Go straight to the links below if you just can't bear to read any more commentary.]

There were several very important decisions handed down this past Monday and Thursday, the last 2 days of the 2011-12 term. I will let the interviews do most of the talking. But first a recap in terms of what we've been examining in the series on the Supreme Court's partisanship.

On Monday, the Court invalidated life sentences, imposed automatically without parole, for crimes committed by juveniles.

The voting line-up?

The 4 liberal Democratic Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) were, of course, against such "cruel and unusual" sentences.

The 4 conservative Republican Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) were, of course, in favor of them.

Kennedy sided with the libs on that one.

The Court also invalidated Montana's 100 year old law limiting corporate campaign spending.

You know how it went: the 4 lib-Dems favored Montana's spending restrictions, and the 4 con-Repubs didn't and reaffirmed Citizens United.
Kennedy joined the conservatives on this one.

The Court also invalidated most of Arizona's immigration law. [It did unanimously uphold 1 provision on narrow grounds, warning that it better not be enforced in a racially/ethnically discriminatory manner.]
All 3 lib-Dems who voted [Kagan took no part.] agreed that most of the law should be thrown out.
Of the con-Repubs, 3 wanted all or most of the law saved.
Kennedy went with the libs.
Roberts, perhaps in a preview of the Obamacare decision, also joined the libs to give them a 5 Justice majority.

As for the decision upholding Obamacare decision:
All 4 lib-Dems voted (surprise, surprise) for Obamacare.
3 of the con-Repubs voted (again, surprise, surprise) against it.
Kennedy voted with the conservatives.
Roberts--as the entire world now knows--voted with the libs to make the 5 Justice majority.