Humanities desk
< June 27	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 28

Supreme Court ideological composition

Generally speaking, our U. S. Supreme Court has been at about a 5-4 (or 4-5) ideological split, as of late. There are some solid conservatives, some solid liberals, and some swing voters. There is much discussion of President Trump now replacing retiring Justice Kennedy. And, obviously, he will seek to fill the seat with a conservative. Which brings me to my question. What has been the most "powerful" (or "disparate") ideological split in the Supreme Court's history? Has the Court ever been 9-0 or 8-1 or 7-2 (or such) in its split? Just curious. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We probably have all the decisions on Wikipedia somewhere; we have 2017 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States for example, and there are several 9-0 decisions. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source that is related to your question, at least: [1]. The graph at the top of the article plots the Judicial Common Space scores for the median justice on the court from 1947 forward. The idea is that the justice with the median score will most often be the 'swing' judge in close decisions, and will therefore reflect the tipping point liberal-conservative bias of the entire court. Assuming Trump appoints someone at least reasonably conservative to the court, John Roberts will be the new median 'swing' justice and pull the court's tipping point rightward. Even so, the court was appreciably more conservative through most of the 1950s, 1980s and 1990s, and at least comparable during the late 2000s—at least as measured by JCS score.

That said, "ideological split" is more than a little bit nebulous, and comparisons over time particularly slippery. "Ideology", too, isn't a one-dimensional concept. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was decided 7-2—despite the court's median justice having a strong rightward lean. (And Byron White – the nominal 'median' justice at the time – actually wrote the dissent in that case. White also wrote the dissent in the much-closer 5-4 Miranda v. Arizona.) So...it's complicated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: Thanks. Yes, it's very complicated and not at all clear-cut. Wow, I don't think that I ever realized that Miranda was a 5-4 vote. That's hard to believe. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that both of Obama's appointments (Sotomayor and Kagan) moved the court rightward. They weren't painted as conservative per se, but rather, as less liberal than the retiring justices (Souter and Stevens) who they replaced, resulting in a net rightward shift. I don't have a view myself about whether that assessment is correct. Obama's last pick (Merrick Garland) was less conservative than his predecessor (Scalia), but wasn't confirmed, and who was (according to our article) supported by Orrin Hatch as an alternative to "someone the liberal Democratic base wants". I don't know how Gorsuch (Trump's first appointee, who replaced Scalia) compares with Scalia. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can absent Senators vote?

In the U. S. Senate, if a Senator is absent, can he or she still somehow vote? I was reading about the upcoming Senate vote for the new Supreme Court justice. The article basically said that Republicans have a 51-49 majority. And it then stated that the Republican majority will be lowered to 50-49, if Senator John McCain is absent due to his health issues. So, if it were a "really important" vote, can an "absent" Senator McCain (or any other "absent" Senator) still somehow cast a vote? Electronically, through telephone, computer, or whatever? Or must the Senator physically be in that room when the vote occurs? Does Wikipedia have any articles about such matters? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Pair (parliamentary convention). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that that article says A pairing would usually not apply for critical votes, such as no-confidence votes., albeit without an inline source. Purely my personal intuition: I'm pretty sure no one is going to agree to be a "live pair" for McCain in a vote on a confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. Lesser matters, maybe, but not that.

In the case of a 49–49 vote, Mike Pence would break the tie, so opponents would have to get at least one Republican to actively vote "no". --Trovatore (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question directly... no... the Senate currently has no mechanism for an absent Senator to cast a vote. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been instances where a dying Senator was carried in to vote. One who could not speak [2] pointed to his eye with a finger and the person presiding the session recorded an “Aye.” Dying nonagenarian Senator Byrd voted no with a thumbs down gesture. But they were there physically. Edison (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaslighting

I read the wiki article on gaslighting and checked out a few vids. Can two people be gaslighting each other? I have a mother and daughter (both adults) that I have been working with for a while. I have met each individually as well as together. Both are exhibiting the signs of having been (past and current) gaslighted and each indicates that the other is the perpetrator (when they describe how the other treats her, has impacted her, makes her feel, etc.). There is not currently anyone else in the family system who could have gaslighted both of them. If I were just meeting with one of them, I would likely conclude that the other is the gaslighter (and this is what it presents as when I have met them individually). 76.71.157.49 (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the kind of question we can answer here. You've already found the relevant Wikipedia article, and will have to arrive at your own conclusions.--Jayron 32 22:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, there is no logical reason why two individuals could not be engaged in attempts at mutual gas lighting. However, one could reason that such an attempt could likely be futile if both individuals are skilled, as they would both be sensitised to the symptomps and would be primed to detect them. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect it can happen with both sides successfully gaslighting the other. See also codependency. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize codependency that way. (I also wouldn't characterize it as "pseudoscience" as some POV-pusher put it in the article.) And I'm having trouble picturing how each can be both perp and victim at the same time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the old Spy vs. Spy comic showed many instances of bidirectional gaslighting. The two spies were probably also codependent. There is actually fanfiction about that, whose content was about what you can imagine under rule 34. Don't ask how I know this. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider”blaming the victim” a likely explanation when two family member accuse each other of gaslighting. Person A messes with person B’s stuff. I won’t even list half a dozen tactics I just thought of, per wp:beans. B complains to a relative, Pastor, or counselor. A denied everything and counter complains that A has suffered all sorts of similar offenses, and who could have done them but B. Perpetrators often say “Hey, I am the victim here!” Edison (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]