What Would Make a Supreme Court Biased?

[Carborendum]

Recently, we've all heard about the SCOTUS decision regarding social media sites censoring conservative voices.  And there are many crying foul because some of the "supposedly" conservative justices sided with the liberals on this.  Well, how is this different when liberals cry foul when the conservative voices say they are being biased toward the conservative position?

When making a claim about the bias of the Court, we must ask what the Opinion actually stated rather than just the final verdict alone.

The fact is that conservatives went to the Court unprepared.  They had thought that the biased censorship was so blatant that it was just "obvious."  Unfortunately, they had depended upon their conservative bona fides should sway the court.  Wrong.  They made arguments, but failed to provide actual evidence of such practice.

It is one thing for them to decide if such a practice should be lawful or not.  It is yet another to say some practice is taking place in a willful manner.  The conservative court would have certainly ruled in favor of conservatives for the former condition.  But when the "defendants" denied the practice entirely, evidence must be provided to sway the judges by either the preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt (I don't know which would apply here).  And it seemed that the majority of the Court decided the plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence.

Let's all keep this in mind when we call SCOTUS biased.

Make no mistake, there are some cases where they are actually SUPPOSED to be biased.  If it is a question of whether a certain practice should be considered morally or ethically acceptable in a country, YES, bias is the prerogative of Court.  In fact, that is one of the primary jobs of the Supreme Court.

But when it is a question of guilt or innocence that is clearly defined in the law, they need to follow the law and the evidence.  Apparently, there was a difference of opinion on whether they had produced enough evidence to convict (if it's even called that at such a level).

[Manners Matter]

Bias is, of course, a concern but I'm concerned about the consequences of this ruling.

[Carborendum]

12 minutes ago, Manners Matter said:

Bias is, of course, a concern but I'm concerned about the consequences of this ruling.

I'm not sure if it will change much of anything.  They censored before.  And they will continue censoring.

Remember, this wasn't about setting policy or precedent.  It was about the lack of evidence.  So, we're no worse than we were a month ago due to this ruling.

Edited June 27, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

The social media ruling never actually addressed the merits of the case.  It doesn't matter how good or bad the conservative's preparation or argument was, it never got addressed.  It's not a substantive ruling.  The court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their lawsuit.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The social media ruling never actually addressed the merits of the case.  It doesn't matter how good or bad the conservative's preparation or argument was, it never got addressed.  It's not a substantive ruling.  The court ruled that that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their lawsuit.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

Denial for lack of standing is a pretty common thing, and it's substantive in its own way. I often dislike the "no standing" ruling, but it makes sense from a legal perspective.

[estradling75]

For alot of people Bias is when the Court does not rule the way they wanted them to.

For me the closer the Court votes to party lines the more likely it is to be Bias (which is why the parties want to have there people in)

When the Court vote has crossing of party lines I am less likely to think Bias an more likely to think the Lawyers either really really made their case, or really failed to make there case that it is basically decided on technical merits... not bias