Yes. The proper question to ask is whether Thomas continually takes conservative positions to the right even of his fellow conservatives. Nothing about his positions can be inferred from these statistics.
I tried to make a general statement, and apparently failed.
Mother Nature. She could swat us all like flies. No amount of money or stature can save you.
If we’re going to argue that Barrett doesn’t have power because she’s not a swing vote, then by that argument, no other member of the Supreme Court has power, either. And if each member of the court is powerless, then surely, so too must the court be as a whole. Which is of course an absurd position.
She’s still probably not the most powerful woman in the world: That would probably be one of the heads of government, especially since most of them aren’t in divided-power systems like the US, and hold both executive and legislative power. But she does have a significant amount of power.
At WGN. I was there at the time, albeit in radio (720 AM) but they were still in the same building. I think it was to replace Donahue, who moved to NY about that time, but my memory is hazy.
Siskel&Ebert had a fixed set in a really tiny studio. The magic of green screen.
You would need to look at their voting record. Roberts dabbles in swinger culture, as I understand it.
If Barrett swings then I’d be willing to upgrade her.
A block of 2 million soldiers is powerful. The person who commands the block is powerful. The individual soldier, himself, may as well be an ant for all that he matters.
I would have guessed Scott, Harris, Pelosi or Oprah? It remains to be seen if Truss can summon Thatcher. Merkel and Clinton are gone. I don’t know enough about Beyoncé. There are perhaps seven women worth over $25B including a couple wealthier (but likely less munificent) than Bezos ex.
Mackenzie Scott is probably the world’s WEALTHIEST woman, thanks to her divorce from Jeff Bezos.
Until quite recently, I would have said Angela Merkel, but I’d say Liz Truss nowadays, even superseding Kamala Harris.
There was an article in the Times that suggested it just might be Ursula von der Leyen, essentially head of the EC. The position doesn’t make a lot of noise but, behind the scenes, wields a lot of power.
Forgot to look up the EU. But yes, I’d have to change my answer over to her.
Suppose that we had a situation where there were five Supreme Court justices who all formed an unbreakable voting bloc, with all of them always voting in lockstep with the other four, on every single case. Would you then say that all five of them were powerless? Or maybe you’d say that they still have power, because any one of them could break the bloc, even if they don’t, but then, suppose we had a bloc of six? And if each is powerless, then whence the power of the bloc?
The only sane way to assign power to a member of a body is to assign each member 1/n of the total power of the body, where n is the number of members. Or at the least, 1/n of the power of the bloc they’re a member of.
You’re surely right from a theoretical perspective. From a practical perspective I’m not sure I agree. …
If we assume
The deciders render decisions mostly on their personal ideology, with the raw facts and the law being at worst little more than jumping-off places.
The definition of “power” is “An individual’s ability to change a real-world outcome.”
then …
I’d argue the hard-core fringe ideologues have little power; they are reliably going to vote one way or the other, period, amen. Conversely the center that could go either way has the power. So a graph of the personal power of each decider would follow some sort of bell curve. Which curve may have a different shape and different orderings of who’s where depending on the issue.
Said another way, assume there is a particular decision to be made and you wish to influence the result by bribing the relevant person(s) to vote your desired way. Do you spend your money on the ones who’re already going to vote your way, or the ones who will never vote your way, or the ones who might, given suitable incentives, vote your way?
My vote is to spend on Door #3. That’d be me harnessing the people who have the practical power to advance my cause.
But that’s what’s so slippery about the concept; looked at in another other way, imagine that she wishes to advance her own cause, like you were just saying — and that, instead of trying to influence the result by spending money bribing a relevant person to vote her way, she simply influences the result as a relevant person: by voting her way. And, if it helps, say, too, that she were to narrate her story of having reached her current position in those same terms you just used: by “harnessing the people who have the practical power to advance my cause.” What follows?