That’s not how Great debates works, Dude. You made statement, and were asked to back it up. If you arent able to, that means you were wrong. Ad Hominem attacks and personal insults dont get you far.
Not sure what your understanding is but it seems like there are more split decisions “nowadays”, over 20%. Surely significant even if you disagree with “huge”.
More like right-wing extremism since he seemed more motivated by paranoid hatred of Obama and appears to have been partly set off by the anti-Planned Parenthood videos("no more baby body parts).
These two showed a lot more planning and seemed far better at functioning in society.
That said, reports are that she became radicalized in Saudi Arabia, the guy’s ex-wife talked about how he suffered from mental illness and he’d spent a lot of time online seeking a wife.
Most criminal pairings aren’t a partnership, there’s usually one leader and one follower. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a case where she(the one with the online posts praising ISIS) was the leader and he was the easily led follower.
Yeah, they were radicals but I suspect you strip it back and a more accurate statement is she wanted to be a hero while he was desperate for a lover.
As for Dear, yeah, he was clearly a right-wing radical but he more comes across to me as being motivated by his own failings and inadequacies.
Http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303627104576410051761796150
It was my impression that you were an ardent follower of the Court, Bone, so I’m curious where your opinion that septimus was wrong comes from.
Is this the sort of random insult you resort to when refuted on facts? Now we know Scumpup’s intellectual caliber.
I’m studying right-wing American “thought.” (The correlation between gun-loving and other right-wing pathologies isn’t perfect, but it’s strong.) Your snitty cavilling supports my hypotheses.
Next time you “study” “something” you might “consider” trying to at least present the illusion that “you” are “impartial.”
I am a follower - though of course there are always those who have greater knowledge. I think it depends on how those terms that septimus used are defined.
When I look at the stat pack from SCOTUS blog, I see from the 2014 term there were 19 cases decided on a 5-4 vote representing 26% of total opinions… Of those, Kennedy was in the majority 14 times. That means Kennedy was part of the deciding vote in about 19% of cases for the most recent term. If that qualifies under septimus’s criteria, that’s fine.
There’s a bit more to it though. Because over the same term for the same 5-4 decisions, Breyer was also in the majority 14 times. Based on this criteria alone, what can be said about Kennedy can be said about Breyer. Sotomayor 13, Ginsburg 12, Roberts and Kagan 10. In this small sample size, I’m not sure how much weight I would put on the difference between 14 and 12.
But there’s more. Because of the way that septimus framed his statement, it seems like he is saying the conservative justices are lined up against the liberal justices and Kennedy plays the tie breaker. But in looking at the ideological makeup of the 5-4 decisions, it’s not always (though mostly. 7 by my interpretation of the tables) lined up that way. So the number is smaller than the 19% above.
It’s not a novel idea that septimus advances. The stat pack has a whole page dedicated to Kennedy involvement in 5-4 decisions. I’m just not clear on what is meant by “huge”. I read that to mean less than a majority since that would be “most”. Is 16% huge? If it is, then fine, that’s a fair statement. In my opinion, it’s not commonly held that 16% is “huge”.
Of course the figures above vary year by year. Breyer was only in the majority 7 times to Kennedy’s 12 times in the 2011 term (47% to 80%).
Thanks for the well spelled out reply, Bone. I will ruminate on it. 
Wanted to add:
It had been my impression that Kennedy’s tenure had surprised many how centrist he has ended up being, making septimus’ scare quotes around the term peculiar to me and no doubt coloured your interpretation of his meaning. My second link notes that he sided with the Liberal side on individual liberty cases often.
The way you seem to have defined “deciding vote,” no Justice would be part of the deciding vote in any case except a 5-4 decision. If that’s what you intended, it seems disingenous to include all the 6-3 votes, etc. to come up with your 19% figure.
I also suspect that in some of the 6-3 decisions Roberts deserted the right-wing faction as a show of moderation because he knew Kennedy was voting against him anyway. (Obviously I have no proof of that.)
I have a habit of quoting ambiguous terms even when not attempting to “scare.” Sorry about that. If my intention were to scare I’d use an emoticon. 
I don’t really like the term “scare quotes” since generally quotes around a word in that context is to denote that one thinks it a dubious description. I took your quote marks to mean you don’t think he’s really a centrist. Correct?
What the anti-gun lobby is really saying is that Americans aren’t responsible enough to handle firearms any more. They should be treated as children just as the Europeans are.
Total BS of course. The overwhelming majority of gun-owners are responsible law-abiding citizens. To punish them for the actions of a few lunatics or fanatics is absurd, akin to taking away people’s cars because of the deaths caused by drunken drivers.
It really saddens me that so many people should be constantly begging the government to restrict their freedoms. But that’s liberals for you; the more power the government has over our lives the better they like it.
What a facile and childish argument. It is immediately undone by the myriad government restrictions already in place. Do these make US citizens children?
And the flat out obnoxious statement that European citizens are treated like children because they don’t mimic American gun laws.
In good measure because of the deaths caused by drunken and otherwise irresponsible drivers, every year or two there are new auto safety requirements increasing the vehicle costs for everyone. I’m for this. Here is a current example:
If law abiding gun-owners were treated like new car buyers, there would be ever-tightening gun safety standards, as advocated here:
I’ve already declared that off-limits. Use it again and you’ll be in trouble.
I haven’t taken much interest in gun control legislation as a means to solve the gun problem, but I am wondering if there is a good statistic for how many innocent strangers die at the hand of a crazy with a gun. (Mass killings; muggings; the truly insane; etc etc)
IOW, if you start with all those gunned down and take away
- Murders by common criminals where the dead are also more or less fellow criminals in the same seedy racket (fights involving illegal drugs; fellow violent gang members–whatever),
- Suicides
- Lovers quarrels–stuff like that
Do we have a number?
I’m of the opinion that aside from the general handwringing that society needs to better, every life is important, blah blah blah, the only thing that would get a movement off the ground is if innocent stranger deaths due to guns were a scary number.
Is it?
I’m inclined to an alternate view on this.
A citizenry heavily armed with ordinary small arms would be difficult to control with military–or even police means–if they were willing to fight.
I think this is part of the reason you can’t just clean up Iraq or Afghanistan with an invading military, tanks or not.