I struggle with the concept that justices should not have to disclose their votes. They are among the most powerful people in the country, they do incredibly important work, and their decisions can have impacts on tens of millions of lives. If they don't want the public to know how they voted, perhaps they should decline to be candidates when they are nominated. Otherwise, they should take accountability for how they are voting.
What I found interesting about the decision is that (1) Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch obviously were struggling with the resolution of the case and came out differently for different reasons and (2) Justice Thomas apparently finds the parties’ choice of issues to argue more binding than Supreme Court precedent.
Interestingly, there is some discussion of the interaction between precedent and party-presentation in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in US v. Gamble -- e.g., footnote 6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/17-646.pdf
I struggle with the concept that justices should not have to disclose their votes. They are among the most powerful people in the country, they do incredibly important work, and their decisions can have impacts on tens of millions of lives. If they don't want the public to know how they voted, perhaps they should decline to be candidates when they are nominated. Otherwise, they should take accountability for how they are voting.
What is the meaning of "accountability" for justices having lifetime appointment except by impeachment?
In my comment above, it meant disclosing how they voted in each case.
What I found interesting about the decision is that (1) Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch obviously were struggling with the resolution of the case and came out differently for different reasons and (2) Justice Thomas apparently finds the parties’ choice of issues to argue more binding than Supreme Court precedent.
Interestingly, there is some discussion of the interaction between precedent and party-presentation in Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in US v. Gamble -- e.g., footnote 6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/17-646.pdf
Thanks. I searched on "party" and didn't see anything else in the opinion about the issue.
For the information of others, FN6 addresses party presentation as a spur to re-examining a precedent.