# 9-0 conservative or liberal SCOTUS majority, what would happen? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719 "2017-04-18T18:07:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/1 "2017-04-18T18:07:34Z")
Say that - right this moment - SCOTUS was suddenly replaced by 9 ultra-left or ultra-right justices (picture nine Ruth Ginsburgs at age forty, or nine Clarence Thomases at age forty) who were able to serve for 40+ years to come. What would happen? The ultra-right scenario isn’t too hard to predict: The nine righties would overturn \*Roe, Obergefell, \*pretty much all affirmative-action and also uphold voter ID laws, maybe also overturn some of the voting laws that Southern states have been under since the 1960s. It might try to turn America into something of a theocracy. The ultra-left scenario is harder, since it would deal more with future unforeseen cases, whereas the righties would be mostly about overturning previous liberal decisions. It goes without saying that _Roe, Obergefell,_ etc. would be safe. I don’t think polygamy would get legalized under a far-left SCOTUS. But we might see tougher restrictions on speech, and the opening up of the vote to more people, possibly Guamers or Virgin Islanders and maybe green carders or permanent residents. Hard to tell whether such a SCOTUS would expand POTUS power or reduce it. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/2 "2017-04-18T18:08:46Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I don’t think polygamy would get legalized under a far-left SCOTUS. As opposed to, say, far right. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/3 "2017-04-18T18:14:27Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I don’t think polygamy would get legalized under a far-left SCOTUS. But we might see tougher restrictions on speech, and the opening up of the vote to more people, possibly Guamers or Virgin Islanders and maybe green carders or permanent residents. The only one of those that seems realistic is changing the status of territories and commonwealths, thereby giving the vote to “Guamers or Virgin Islanders” as you put it (also Puerto Ricans and Northern Mariana Islanders). Restrictions on speech would definitely not happen, unless you consider Citizens United to be about speech, as that’s likely to be overturned. > [@Velocity](#): > > Hard to tell whether such a SCOTUS would expand POTUS power or reduce it. Reduce it. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/4 "2017-04-18T20:08:57Z")
> [@PigArcher](#): > > Restrictions on speech would definitely not happen, unless you consider Citizens United to be about speech, as that’s likely to be overturned. Yep, that’s what Citizen’s United was about. Making it illegal to pay to print something is basically the same as making it illegal to print something. Neither side gets a gold star on free speech. They both want to hide or minimize speech they don’t like, and promote speech they do. I’ll agree that free speech is something America does much better than other nations. Curtailing campaign spending is a very light touch on the free speech infringement scale, but it’s infringement nonetheless. > [@PigArcher](#): > > Reduce it. Like Clinton and Obama did? Both sides are complicit in embiggening the White House, too. The SC is orthogonal to this trend, but there’s nothing “far left” or “far right” about reducing presidential power. Each side wants the other team’s President to be limited to actions with bipartisan support, and their own to be just enough shy of autocratic that Congress can rein them in when necessary. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/5 "2017-04-19T12:17:55Z")
Liberal judges are far more likely than conservative judges to magically find that their personal policy preferences are in the Constitution. Antonio Scalia never claimed that the Constitution forbids abortion or gay marriage. He argued that the Constitution says and implies NOTHING about either issue. Ergo, those are matters for legislation. You want gay marriage? Get to work and change the law. You want l gal abortion? Get to work and pass a law. Liberals find it more convenient to ignore the law and impose their own opinions. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/6 "2017-04-19T13:23:27Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Liberal judges are far more likely than conservative judges to magically find that their personal policy preferences are in the Constitution. > > \ > > Liberals find it more convenient to ignore the law and impose their own opinions. Sorry, but this is a load of bull. Conservative opinion is actually legal, where as liberal opinion is anti-law? Conservative judges vote in support of conservative rulings, not because they are conservative themselves, but because it just so coincidentally happens that that conservative view, which they may not even personally support, is just the right interpretation? Puh-lease. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/7 "2017-04-19T13:50:11Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Liberal judges are far more likely than conservative judges to magically find that their personal policy preferences are in the Constitution. > > Antonio Scalia never claimed that the Constitution forbids abortion or gay marriage. He argued that the Constitution says and implies NOTHING about either issue. Ergo, those are matters for legislation. You want gay marriage? Get to work and change the law. You want l gal abortion? Get to work and pass a law. > > Liberals find it more convenient to ignore the law and impose their own opinions. The Constitution says a lot about equal protection. Just because you didn’t think it applied to _those people_ doesn’t mean _Roe_ and _Obergefell_ aren’t based on solid legal reasoning. Women and gay people are people too. Interestingly, your liberal friends could say the exact same things about _Heller_ and _Citizen’s United_. “Want to own handguns outside of a militia? Pass a law. Want to donate unlimited amounts to political campaigns of your choice? Pass a law.” Luckily, the “pass a law” camp lost in all four cases. There really are rights, and they’re really not subject to the whim of the majority. Go figure. Civics class wasn’t a complete load of horseshit after all. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/8 "2017-04-19T14:25:46Z")
Wait, are we seriously claiming that unlimited, untraceable political contributions qualify as free speech again, and that we don’t have free speech without them? _Really_? I’m pretty sure the USA is in the minority when it comes to western democracies that allow that, and we are almost certainly worse off as a result. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/9 "2017-04-19T14:28:30Z")
The Supreme Court can’t just overturn a ruling on a whim. A case has to make it through the Federal District and Appellate courts. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/10 "2017-04-19T15:10:32Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > The Supreme Court can’t just overturn a ruling on a whim. A case has to make it through the Federal District and Appellate courts. I don’t think that’s technically true. I believe people can request the Supreme Court to take up any case, even one that hasn’t been otherwise appealed. I think Gideon was an example of this. As far as I can tell, Clarence Gideon went directly from the Bay County, Florida Circuit Court, where he had been convicted of petty larceny, to the United States Supreme Court. Of course, this is completely up to the Justices on the Court. Nobody can compel them to hear an appeal. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/11 "2017-04-19T15:16:50Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Wait, are we seriously claiming that unlimited, untraceable political contributions qualify as free speech again, and that we don’t have free speech without them? _Really_? I’m pretty sure the USA is in the minority when it comes to western democracies that allow that, and we are almost certainly worse off as a result. That’s your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. Bush era conservatives made similar defenses of “free speech zones”. But making it illegal to _pay_ to print something is the same as making it illegal to print something. The solution to speech you don’t like is more speech, not banning it, and not restricting it to a tiny corner that everyone ignores. Nobody is saying we don’t have free speech. As I said before, “Curtailing campaign spending is a very light touch on the free speech infringement scale, but it’s infringement nonetheless.” Just because free speech still exists doesn’t mean free speech cages and the ban on “Hillary: The Movie” aren’t infringement. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/12 "2017-04-19T15:58:13Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Sorry, but this is a load of bull. > > Conservative opinion is actually legal, where as liberal opinion is anti-law? > > Conservative judges vote in support of conservative rulings, not because they are conservative themselves, but because it just so coincidentally happens that that conservative view, which they may not even personally support, is just the right interpretation? Puh-lease. You don’t even attempt to disprove what I say, which is telling in itself. Clarence Thomas declared that anti-sodomy laws were “supremely silly,” but voted that legislatures DO have the right to pass silly laws. If you don’t like silly laws, your task is not to run whining to William Brennan to overturn the law. It’s to get busy changing the law. By contrast, liberal judges tend to say, “Forget the law, Forget precedent. The Constitution says whatever we want it to say.” With one HUGE exception- liberals with NO respect for precedent insist that the idiotic, dishonest Roe vs. Wade decision is a sacred “super precedent” that must never be overturned. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/13 "2017-04-19T16:29:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > You don’t even attempt to disprove what I say, which is telling in itself. What would you expect to be “disproving”? In a vast majority of cases that you likely object to, the judges present valid, legal reasoning, based on precedent, to make their rulings. Oh, wait, you disagree with them, so they must be the ones making up laws. Same old boring, unfounded rhetoric. > [@astorian](#): > > Clarence Thomas declared that anti-sodomy laws were “supremely silly,” but voted that legislatures DO have the right to pass silly laws. Clarence Thomas was right, if understating, that the laws were silly. He was wrong that legislatures can pass unconstitutional laws. And that’s what the laws were. Unconstitutional. > [@astorian](#): > > By contrast, liberal judges tend to say, “Forget the law, Forget precedent. The Constitution says whatever we want it to say.” With one HUGE exception- liberals with NO respect for precedent insist that the idiotic, dishonest Roe vs. Wade decision is a sacred “super precedent” that must never be overturned. No they don’t. More idiotic rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/14 "2017-04-19T16:44:01Z")
Great on proving _astorian_’s point for him. I am sure you can find good reasons as to why it’s unconstitutional. Maybe in the text of the judgement? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/15 "2017-04-19T17:03:00Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Liberal judges are far more likely than conservative judges to magically find that their personal policy preferences are in the Constitution. > > Antonio Scalia never claimed that the Constitution forbids abortion or gay marriage. He argued that the Constitution says and implies NOTHING about either issue. Ergo, those are matters for legislation. You want gay marriage? Get to work and change the law. You want l gal abortion? Get to work and pass a law. > > Liberals find it more convenient to ignore the law and impose their own opinions. Sort of like defining legal entities (corporations) as individuals in order to rationalize unlimited campaign spending/influence peddling. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/16 "2017-04-19T17:58:11Z")
Corporations in the modern sense didn’t even exist when the Bill of Rights was enacted. So there’s no way that the Freedom of Speech clause was written with the intent that it applied to corporations. That idea was something judges created in 1976. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/17 "2017-04-19T18:31:15Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Sort of like defining legal entities (corporations) as individuals in order to rationalize unlimited campaign spending/influence peddling. People don’t stop being people just because they organize themselves into a group. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” doesn’t mention that it’s okay as long there’s more than one person contributing to that speech. The very same amendment says there is a right to peaceable assembly, so those people who assembled into a group have just as much right to speak as an individual. Speech has long been used to apply to all sorts of expression, so you can’t prevent that group of people from making a movie, or airing one. Add in the fact that preventing them from _spending money_ to make or air the movie is the same as preventing them from making or airing the movie, and you’ve got the Citizen’s United decision. I’m not sure where “defining corporations as individuals” comes into play there. It’s a pretty straightforward chain of reasoning based on the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Smitty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Smitty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smitty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/18 "2017-04-19T19:57:52Z")
To get back to the OP, I’d imagine that looking at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would give you a good idea of what a solidly liberal court would do, and the 5th Circuit would give you an idea of a solidly conservative court. ---
**Author:** ![Silver\_lining](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Silver\_lining](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silver_lining)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/19 "2017-04-19T20:37:44Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Say that - right this moment - SCOTUS was suddenly replaced by 9 ultra-left or ultra-right justices (picture nine Ruth Ginsburgs at age forty, or nine Clarence Thomases at age forty) who were able to serve for 40+ years to come. What would happen? > > The ultra-right scenario isn’t too hard to predict: The nine righties would overturn \*Roe, Obergefell, \*pretty much all affirmative-action and also uphold voter ID laws, maybe also overturn some of the voting laws that Southern states have been under since the 1960s. It might try to turn America into something of a theocracy. > > The ultra-left scenario is harder, since it would deal more with future unforeseen cases, whereas the righties would be mostly about overturning previous liberal decisions. It goes without saying that _Roe, Obergefell,_ etc. would be safe. I don’t think polygamy would get legalized under a far-left SCOTUS. But we might see tougher restrictions on speech, and the opening up of the vote to more people, possibly Guamers or Virgin Islanders and maybe green carders or permanent residents. Hard to tell whether such a SCOTUS would expand POTUS power or reduce it. Nine lefties would not change the court as much because much of the federal appointed judges in the past 8 years are lefties. Nine righties however would see more cases over ruled, I think. Even if the righties get a 6-3 majority, I do not think much will change. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719/20 "2017-04-19T21:44:47Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > People don’t stop being people just because they organize themselves into a group. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” doesn’t mention that it’s okay as long there’s more than one person contributing to that speech. > > The very same amendment says there is a right to peaceable assembly, so those people who assembled into a group have just as much right to speak as an individual. > > Speech has long been used to apply to all sorts of expression, so you can’t prevent that group of people from making a movie, or airing one. > > Add in the fact that preventing them from _spending money_ to make or air the movie is the same as preventing them from making or airing the movie, and you’ve got the Citizen’s United decision. > > I’m not sure where “defining corporations as individuals” comes into play there. It’s a pretty straightforward chain of reasoning based on the first amendment. Your analogy is inappropriate. A corporation does not, except in very special cases (usually where there are very few employees) represent the political beliefs of the entirety of its work force. And, oddly, they never say something along the lines of ‘40% of our workers disagreed with this policy or politician we’re supporting.’ In effect, defininig corporations as individuals is _exactly_ what this decision did. So you’ve read the majority opinion. How about the dissenting one? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens\_United\_v.\_FEC#Dissent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Dissent) > [@](#): > > Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not “We the People” for whom our Constitution was established.[24] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the “furthest from the core of political expression” protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[36] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending “more transactional than ideological”. Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money. > > Fourth, Stevens attacked the majority’s central argument: that the prohibition of spending guards free speech and allows the general public to receive all available information. Relying on Austin, Stevens argued that corporations “unfairly influence” the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. Because a typical voter can only absorb so much information during a relevant election period, Stevens described “unfair corporate influence” as the potential to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the “marketplace of ideas”.[24] This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. Thus, this process marginalizes the speech of other individuals and groups. Not nearly all of the dissent’s objections, but germane to your argument. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-0-conservative-or-liberal-scotus-majority-what-would-happen/784719.md?page=2)