Discussion: Scalia, Thomas Far Likelier To Support Free Speech For Conservatives

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #222454

2

Clarence Thomas never speaks; However he supports whatever Scalia has to say.

5 Likes
3

“Some people are more equal than others” - 1960’s conservatives

“Some speech is more free than other speech” - 2014 conservatives

2 Likes
4

Doesn’t sound like it is really “liberal and conservative” who are more likely to vote with their ideology. Sounds like mostly conservatives do that more often. Big shock.

3 Likes
5

Really, Sahil? That’s your takeaway - that both sides do it?

One liberal justice shows a “statistically significant” difference, versus six(!) conservative justices, and that liberal’s difference is radically smaller than that of his conservative counterparts.

13 Likes
6

Really, Sahil? The take-away from that graph is that the arch-conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) are overwhelmingly more likely to favor conservative speech than liberal speech; for the liberal justices (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) the trend is slight to non-existent.

7 Likes
7

Ugg just simple caveman, but data doesn’t support Sahil’s simplistic conclusion.

10 Likes
8

lol. We wrote almost the same exact thing.

9

Great minds…

1 Like
10

Which is why he’s also known as “Sockpuppet” Thomas.

11

I’m shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!

12

So, looking at the data:
The four justices in the insane-right-wing camp have an average pro-wingnut (not “conservative,” there haven’t been conservatives since around 1979) delta of 45 percent, the two not-completely-insane-but-still-right-wing justices (Kennedy, O’Connor) average approx 22 percent pro-wingnut delta, and THE SINGLE “MOST LIBERAL” JUSTICE is just under 16 percent pro-liberal delta.

You know, Sahil, if I wanted to read bullshit “but-but-but both sides DO IT” stories which DON’T COMPORT WITH THE FACTS, I can always read the WaPo, or listen to Fox, or similar. I expect more from this joint.

Oh, and by the way, your “Devilish” silliness re: Immigration reform from yesterday was straight out of Bulwer-Lytton. Actually, no; Bulwer-Lytton didn’t write like he was bucking for a spot at Tiger Beat on the Potomac.

Go big or go home, pal. And by “go big,” I mean “write intelligently, and get your facts right.”

7 Likes
13

Where is a lightning bolt when you need one?

3 Likes
14

How about a great big DUH?

1 Like
15

Numbers are only true if they agree with my conclusions.

16

Shorter title: Right wing justices promote right wing freedom of speech while disfavoring liberal speech rights.

Liberal justices are, apparently, quite fair, e.g. " Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were not found to have a statistically significant preference in their cases"…

I guess that makes them seem wimpy in the eyes of the right wing, where only right wing bias is not bias.

1 Like
17

I swear they look like photographic negatives of each other.

1 Like
18

Sahil is, clearly, just mirroring the New York Times article from this morning, where they also do the ‘fair and balanced’ thing, though their graph was truly graphic enough to belie their headline, where Sahil’s table doesn’t do the same job.

2 Likes
19

There is a huge disparity between the bias shown by conservatives and that shown by liberals.

What’s really appalling about this to me is that it works out exactly the way I’d have imagined it would. The ideological feelings of the judges–conservative and liberal–get projected into their rulings. The liberals are simply more inclined to believe in free speech for everyone.

How much of constitutional law is finding a way to make the constitution say what you want it to?

To what extent is this a fiction we’ve collectively agreed to support, and now it’s falling apart because our polarized politics have led to a polarized court?

1 Like
20

According to the study “Bong Hits for Jesus” is in the same category of speech as not allowing homosexuals to be scoutmasters.