The Drifters: Why the Supreme Court makes justices more liberal

The Boston Review ^ | January/February 2006 | Jon D. Hanson and Adam Benforado

[peyton randolph]

Here are some reasons.

1. O'Connor let her emotions trump the law.
2. Senile justices (Marshall, Brennan, etc.) had law clerks write their opinions based on speculation of what these justices would have written when they younger...and these law clerks were even farther to the left than the justices they served.
3. The sodomy law was stricken down in deference to poofter Souter.

[David Isaac]

This article starts out fairly well, but then sails off into the very turbulent sea of social science theories.

I much prefer examining this phenomenon through the lens of interest theory. Who benefits from the specified behaviors?

[Malesherbes]

For those who don't choose to wade through this, it boils down to the notion that a judges situation on the Supreme Court changes him (actually the authors say "her" in the interest of political correctness.)

[oblomov]

Good article, though clearly from a lefty point of view. For example:

Even on the Supreme Court there are justices who do not seem to shift much at all, let alone to the left. Judge Guido Calabresi’s hope, expressed in a 1991 New York Times op-ed, that then-nominee Clarence Thomas might one day “stand up to the pack . . . and remind us all of what it is like to be poor and friendless and to be facing a hostile state,” has, more than a decade later, yet to be realized.

In other words, Thomas is insufficiently sanctimonious and state-worshipping.

[tkathy]

What the article misses, is that many people tend to become more moderate once they become informed.

[rbg81]

My theory: a Supreme Court justice gets invited to the all the "elite" Washington social functions. There they are courted and cajoled by liberals, who become their friends. Having secured a lifetime appointment, with no real accountability to anyone, over time, they drift to the opinions that their friends hold. After all, no one likes to be disparaged at cocktail parties, or (gasp) in the Washington Post or NYT. In other words, its the Washington Social Establishment, stupid!

Clarance Thomas will NEVER go liberal. The reason: he doesn't socialize with anyone but conservatives and doesn't give press interviews. If I were picking a SCOTUS candidate, I'd pick someone who is both conservative and an introvert.

That being said, the article makes some good points. Given a high-profile job, no matter what their ideological stripe, people will start to act the way people in that position are supposed to act. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.

[goldstategop]

In other words, group-think. People will arrive at the same conclusion if they're a small circle who work together every day. Outsiders don't see why these people think the way they do and they're surprised. Supreme Court Justices reason and decide in a particular manner that sets them apart from the rest of society. This mindset tends to promote judicial comity. Its a habit peculiar to a judge and his world and that of his colleagues is shaped by it. Over time, it acquires more importance than ideology. After all, you do want to remain on good terms with the people you work with and back them up if you can. That's no mystery.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[ThanhPhero]

"Power corrupts..."

[Clemenza]

My theory: a Supreme Court justice gets invited to the all the "elite" Washington social functions. There they are courted and cajoled by liberals, who become their friends. Having secured a lifetime appointment, with no real accountability to anyone, over time, they drift to the opinions that their friends hold. After all, no one likes to be disparaged at cocktail parties, or (gasp) in the Washington Post or NYT. In other words, its the Washington Social Establishment, stupid!

Happens to Senators too. You've heard of "going Hollywood?" Well, folks like McCain and Graham have "gone Washington" and hang out at all of the best parties in Georgetown.

[joesbucks]

What the article misses, is that many people tend to become more moderate once they become informed.

You summarized in a sentence what would have taken me pages to write.

[antisocial]

"What the article misses, is that many people tend to become more moderate once they become informed."

"You summarized in a sentence what would have taken me pages to write."

So you elite "moderates" are much better informed then the mere conservatives among us?

[joesbucks]

First, not an elite. Secondly, a greater overall perspective is better than a pre-concieved notion. The justices are to be as nuetral as possible with regard to the cases before them. They must apply the law being brought before them against the greater fabric of Constitutional principals in the background.

[antisocial]

A moderate is one who has no core beliefs that he will not compromise, or in other words, will compromise his core beliefs for the sake of reaching a consensus or expediency.
Being willing to listen to all sides has nothing to do with being moderate, not being willing to defend your core beliefs and principles is the hallmark of being a moderate.

[joesbucks]

A liberal has core beliefs. How in the world can we change a liberal to a more moderate or even conservative position if they only stick to their core beliefs?

[Beagle8U]

"In other words, Thomas is insufficiently sanctimonious and state-worshipping"

You make an excellent point about Thomas not switching left on the court, and I think the RATS themselves are the reason for it.

Until Bork and Thomas, the Republican nominated Judges were never put through the crap that the moonbats use now to block Judges.

The theory that Conservative Judges may drift left on the Court, was based on a time when they weren't treated like a P.O.S by the left in confirmation hearings.

The moonbats just don't understand why someone that they treat like crap, won't later love them and drift to their way of thinking.

The RATS fried their own bacon and don't even know it!

[oblomov]

There's a difference between Solomon-like judicial wisdom and the "moderate" reflex to find a baby to cut in half on every issue of controversy.

[antisocial]

"A liberal has core beliefs. How in the world can we change a liberal to a more moderate or even conservative position if they only stick to their core beliefs?"

We can change their core beliefs by repeatedly showing them the errors in their logic. When they make decisions based on feelings point out to them how logic would require them to rethink their positions. You have to be patient with them, because liberals are used to deciding things based on feelings, not logic.

[Sybeck1]

Elect conservative senators!! There should not be a single blue senator in a red state but there is.

[Galveston Grl]

Here's my theory; As they age, their minds lose agility. Liberals react to "feel good" solutions or causes. When conservatives consider a solution or cause, they tend to evaluate the idea based on the validity of the data and projected consequences which is requires a complex thinking process and logic. As conservatives age on the court they loose their ability to analyze complex material of law and governance. They become liberals: if it feels right and sounds happy than it is wonderful.

So you could say that the young are liberal because t hey are inexperienced and can not analyze ideas as well as an adult with more experience and knowledge in life. As we become adults, we become conservative because we have leaned that just cause it feels good doesn't mean that it is good. Then as we age, we regress back to the mental abilities of a young person with a mind unable to pull all the pieces of complex knowledge and experience together to analyze socialism's/neo-liberalism's feel good solutions and observations.

This is probably not true of all elderly people.