[skissane]

Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period. (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point, which may well be right, but your example might not be the best example to demonstrate it.)

(And especially considering that the present-day SCOTUS has been accused of repeatedly eroding Miranda v. Arizona, see especially Berghuis v. Thompkins in 2010.)

[394549]

> Miranda v. Arizona was decided over 50 years ago. How relevant is the behavior of SCOTUS 50 years ago to predicting their present-day behavior? The membership is completely different, and there have been countless other changes in law and American society and culture over that period.

Because the Supreme Court is an institution with an institutional culture. Furthermore, its members obsessively study it's past decisions and their reasoning, so I'd expect its culture to have quite a bit of inertia.

[macintux]

There are some disturbing indications that the more conservative current members feel less constrained by traditions and precedent. I don’t have the quotes handy but they were pretty explicit.

[8note]

that inherently seems off; conservatives are defined by trying to follow traditions and precedent. Not changing is their thing

[macintux]

I assume it’s related to Originalism: it’s time to return to first principles.