Rather than knocking down straw men or attacking their critics, the justices (and their defenders) would do well to explain why the sharpest criticisms of the Court's recent behavior are *wrong.*
I’m not a lawyer or a judge. I try not to sound like a conspiracy theorist. However, I do believe the 6 conservative justices hold more fealty to the Heritage Foundation than to the U.S. Constitution&laws.
Thank you for this in-depth analysis of SCOTUS. Most Americans are oblivious to how the few but far reaching decisions made by SCOTUS are detrimentally reshaping our democracy. Skeptical at best is how we should approach the SCOTUS "rulings". But when you take into consideration all the extraneous but interconnected issues and concerns related to said “rulings” SCOTUS is derelict in its duties to guide the lower courts in resolving cases with carefully considered precedent and constitutional adherence. ACB is just being evasive and disingenuous when she says the SC does not want to “give the impression that we have finally resolved the issue”. Where is the follow up to the emergency docket rulings? Does SCOTUS even care that the lower courts’ decision making process is being undermined and hindered? And what is the end game of the “supreme” court? If they overrule all previous precedent the lower courts become obsolete — SCOTUS will become obsolete. Are they trying to take away the right to obtain judicial remedy? The Roberts court is bringing both shame and disgrace on our judicial system and the nation. It shows a complete and utter disdain towards those who are not seated with them on the bench and even towards three of their own colleagues.
As an aside, the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is the voice of the court right now is laughable. Does she want to sell more copies of her book — you bet! Does she provide the approachable face of the mom next door — you bet! Is she putting a
You may not be fully appreciating that the conservative justices are merely completely unbiased neutral arbiters of law, doing their best to only call balls and strikes and wouldn't dream of letting their personal beliefs or biases in any way influence their decisions. Plus, they have hard jobs, and it's unfair that we expect them to explain their work, be consistent in their approach or heaven forbid, abide by a code of ethics. #Sarcasm+
We hear (and have been for years) a great deal about "calling balls and strikes". The analogy to a home-plate umpire is weak to begin with, but it simply ignores the fact that the strike zone has amorphous edges.
Some time ago someone conducted a photographic study of call strikes and balls by a number of umpires. Each umpire’s calls were generally consistent, but as a group varied. Batters, like litigators, adapted.
"These responses continue to suggest that, for whatever reason, they either don’t think the Court’s credibility is under serious threat so long as its support erodes mostly from one side of the aisle, or, even worse, they don’t care."
Couldn't your analysis here also be a reasonable explanation for Justice Barrett's response on Fox News yesterday? Ascribing some of their behavior to arrogance may seem reductionistic, but also feels sadly reasonable.
These justices, (particularly the conservative ones, for a number of reasons, not excluding privileged lives), seem to live in a bubble.
I think what would be especially instructive would be to read up on social dominance.
I think the dismissive attitude on the right is largely due to a perception that "I'm winning" and "we own you". As childish as that seems, I think we have to admit that the right has a huge capacity for being exactly that: childish.
From Trump's tariffs, to armed masked men delivering a sick sort of revenge, to lying and cheating it's all about dominance.
You can find it on budget priorities and healthcare policies too.
It's hard to elevate the arguments of the right when their behavior betrays damaged childhood psyches that prefer "my turn" over healing.
They are authoritarians because that is probably all they know and you can't show empathy, kindness nor decency when it's your turn "to kick some butt". It's certainly been their view on race where to feel better about oneself they require the sugar high of superiority. Life requires enemies to slay.
A legitimate court would explain its reasoning for anything and everything that it regarded as binding. “Because I said so” is never a good enough reason for regarding any ruling as proper, but this Court seems to believe otherwise. And that is why this Court has lost its legitimacy and its defenders are left with nothing but personal attacks.
Some of the most important principles in our Constitution were addressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, and every SCOTUS justice is well aware of these principles. The duty of federal judges is not merely to act like dictators by merely dictating consequences. Their duty is to teach. That's the very reason that very many SCOTUS justices over the past 100 years have re-emphasized the emphasis by Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS in Marbury regarding this crucial duty of all federal judges: "It is emphatically" the "duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Judges' duty is to expressly state the governing law and explain what it means.
The reasons for such rule are crucial. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS subsequently emphasized, each “Judge” is “required to declare the law” because if he “states it erroneously, his opinion” must “be revised; and if it can have had any influence on the” judgment, it must “be set aside.” Etting v. U.S. Bank, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 59, 75 (1826) (Marshall, C.J.).
As many current SCOTUS justices emphasized in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016), “Article III of the Constitution establishe[d]” a “Judiciary” that must be “independent” of all except the law, so the judiciary was assigned the constitutional “duty to say what the [governing] law is” in “particular cases and controversies;” judges “who apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.”
Perhaps the 6 are so focused on achieving the unitary executive, they understand deep down that when the Grail is had the opinion of the Court will no longer matter.
The more that the Court and its defenders are not at all invested in responding to their critics on the critics’ terms, and the more that they are disinterested in shoring up the eroding support for the Court from those who don’t necessarily agree with its bottom lines, the more they are sacrificing the Court’s long-term health for the sake of their short-term ideological agenda.
First, thanks for acknowledging my request for your opinion on Bluesky yesterday. I’m a proud owner of your book The Shadow Docket. You’re correct that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is gaslighting the public. Just their rulings on “non-resolved” issues tend to make all of us think they are indeed actually resolved in private, without the full period being put on the sentence. We only get an actual explanation of the opinion on shadow docket rulings when a member’s arrogance (so it seems) outweighs their judicial credibility.
One quality the 6 members of the Court’s majority and their defenders seem to have in common, perhaps along with that side entire side of the aisle, is a profound lack of humility.
I have a childhood memory of my mother, not an especially political person, saying that lower courts sometimes made mistakes, but if a case reached the Supreme Court, a just and fair decision would be made. I was too young to form my own opinion, but I felt proud to live in a country where justice would ultimately win out.
Up until Trump's second term, I still respected the Supreme Court, though I found some of their decisions egregious and dangerous, especially their overbroad decision on presidential immunity.
With the emergency docket ruling that effectively allows the administration to play shell games with individuals to deport them to foreign prisons, beyond reach of our justice system, as long as the administration gets them on a plane fast enough, I lost all respect for the Court.
I say this as someone who has often defended the Court's decisions to liberal critics who tend to base their judgment on their personal views of the question at hand rather than on an impartial assessment of the Court's reasoning. If I've lost all confidence in the Court, I'm sure that millions of others have as well, and not just those who are purely partisan. This is the first time in my rather long life that I feel that the very foundations of our democracy are truly at risk.
Trump v. US was, for me, the point where they crossed from an ideologically driven court to a lawless court. They knew what was coming, and they signed on for it.
The next step in this dismal process may be for district courts to stop recognizing any precedential effect for Supreme Court pronouncements. The authority of the Supreme Court to establish precedent rests entirely on a combination of custom and persuasiveness. The latter has been eroding for years in cases with a political dimension, and at this point it is almost entirely gone. That leaves only the bulwark of custom. But repeated abuse is rapidly shredding that, too. What happens when the Supreme Court's authority is recognized only in cases on direct appeal to it, and at the same time the Court is inundated with appeals because lower courts are routinely ignoring it?
Perhaps I am being more cynical than is appropriate, but I can't help wondering if the 6 conservatives are using these stays as a way to avoid ruling on the merits until after Trump has left office - thereby allowing Trump to continue doing these things, but then coming in with a merits ruling that prevents any future President from doing them. Especially the firing of "protected" civil servants on "independent" boards. Can't have a future Democratic President sacking all the MAGA employees Trump has embedded in the regulatory agencies!
Thank you for all your piercing analyses of the conduct, contentions and opinions of SCOTUS justices--and for those additional insights about the first Court and the first justices!
Too many of those who criticize the Court's critics presume or pretend that we the people should merely (blindly) revere SCOTUS justices like high priests of some arcane religion that is beyond the grasp of our simple minds. Those people advocate the opposite of the command of the First Amendment that the U.S. government must not attempt or purport to accomplish an "establishment of religion."
As SCOTUS emphasized in Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), “the law” (including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) “gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions” absolutely “no greater immunity from” our “criticism” (or our Constitution) “than other persons or institutions.” Criticism of judicial conduct “cannot be punished” merely “to protect the court as a mystical entity” or “judges as individuals or as anointed priests set apart from the community and spared the criticism to which” all “other public servants are exposed.”
Speaking of the first justice (James Wilson) and first chief justice (John Jay) and criticism of SCOTUS justices' conduct, contentions and opinions, the opinions of Chief Justice Jay and Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia should always be borne in mind. They explained how the text and structure of our Constitution secured the sovereignty of the people over all our public servants.
The dissenting opinion of Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (discussing the insights offered by three framers of the Constitution in Chisholm v. Georgia) was highly insightful. They all emphasized the sovereignty of the people, which necessarily includes our right and power to criticize and propose improvements on the manner in which our public servants purport to perform their public service.
Multiple current SCOTUS justices in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) emphasized a related point that all justices always should bear in mind: "In interpreting [our Constitution's] text," we must bear in mind the crucial fact that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." That statement (repeated by generations of SCOTUS justices) underscores a crucial truth about our Constitution and our power and duty to read and think about it for ourselves.
For years (from at least 1787 to 1791), many enlightened Americans studied and discussed the meaning of the text, structure and purpose of our written Constitution (documenting the constitution of one nation of one people) without the benefit of much, if any, insight from any SCOTUS justice. Our Constitution was written, discussed thoroughly and ratified by the people throughout the nation long before any federal judge was appointed. Also without the benefit of any insight by any federal judge, the first 10 amendments (commonly called our Bill of Rights) were discussed by the people, written by Congress and ratified by the states.
The people have every right and reason to think for ourselves and speak about how current SCOTUS justices are violating their oaths of office and our Constitution.
I realize my comment may sound simplistic. I strongly feel, at least in part, the SC is basing some of their shadow docket rulings in trumps favor because deep down they are actually afraid he will defy their orders. Then what once that is broadcast for all the world to see? They'd become irrelevant. They are more than aware it was their decision in early July last year to grant him almost full immunity. They refused to even entertain the idea of Jack Smith possibly winning a judgment against Trump. So instead a snap decision was made to protect Trump at all costs. Constitutional law be damned!
It has been suggested before that the Court may be acting out of fear of Trump, but I'd place my bet on it being due to real support for the unitary executive theory. As one example, it has often been mentioned that Chief Justice Roberts has long supported that theory, long before Donald Trump entered politics.
Yes great point. I've read about this as well. I still feel there is a touch of fear there too. ACB on Fox yesterday trying to put some legitimacy back in the court. Paraphrasing here, she says all we're really doing is making sure the rules of the law are followed. HUH? I guess it's some more of the rules for thee but not for me crap.
I agree that the only rational reason that the SC Conservative Six (SCCS) is operating in this questionable manner is likely quite simplistic. I don’t think that a concern of Trump’s possible ignoring SC findings and making the SC irrelevant is the most obvious thing that is banding the SCCS to abuse the shadow docket, although it most likely is a contributing factor. I propose that personal greed is a much better candidate. That greed might be for better freebee vacations, secret “loans”, selling more books, or even ego that history will favor their contribution to implementation of the President as “Unitary
So if this all goes according to plan for trump, (Unitary Executive) I wonder if future history books will accurately tell what part the SC played in this monumental change? Side note, I'm keeping a journal to jot down important events each day. I'd like my grandchildren to understand some of us really did try to save it.
Imo, the lack of opinions means that when they deny these same Emergency applications coming from a Democrat President, SCOTUS has left NO paper trail. Thus, they are free to deny without further explanation.
The attacks coming from the right that you've analyzed here are consistent with the right’s failure to take seriously criticism about every other issue the country is facing. Their discourse is completely degraded by a desire to label everything as a left-wing plot.
I’m not a lawyer or a judge. I try not to sound like a conspiracy theorist. However, I do believe the 6 conservative justices hold more fealty to the Heritage Foundation than to the U.S. Constitution&laws.
Thank you for this in-depth analysis of SCOTUS. Most Americans are oblivious to how the few but far reaching decisions made by SCOTUS are detrimentally reshaping our democracy. Skeptical at best is how we should approach the SCOTUS "rulings". But when you take into consideration all the extraneous but interconnected issues and concerns related to said “rulings” SCOTUS is derelict in its duties to guide the lower courts in resolving cases with carefully considered precedent and constitutional adherence. ACB is just being evasive and disingenuous when she says the SC does not want to “give the impression that we have finally resolved the issue”. Where is the follow up to the emergency docket rulings? Does SCOTUS even care that the lower courts’ decision making process is being undermined and hindered? And what is the end game of the “supreme” court? If they overrule all previous precedent the lower courts become obsolete — SCOTUS will become obsolete. Are they trying to take away the right to obtain judicial remedy? The Roberts court is bringing both shame and disgrace on our judicial system and the nation. It shows a complete and utter disdain towards those who are not seated with them on the bench and even towards three of their own colleagues.
As an aside, the fact that Amy Coney Barrett is the voice of the court right now is laughable. Does she want to sell more copies of her book — you bet! Does she provide the approachable face of the mom next door — you bet! Is she putting a
dubious spin on SCOTUS — hell yes!
You may not be fully appreciating that the conservative justices are merely completely unbiased neutral arbiters of law, doing their best to only call balls and strikes and wouldn't dream of letting their personal beliefs or biases in any way influence their decisions. Plus, they have hard jobs, and it's unfair that we expect them to explain their work, be consistent in their approach or heaven forbid, abide by a code of ethics. #Sarcasm+
We hear (and have been for years) a great deal about "calling balls and strikes". The analogy to a home-plate umpire is weak to begin with, but it simply ignores the fact that the strike zone has amorphous edges.
Some time ago someone conducted a photographic study of call strikes and balls by a number of umpires. Each umpire’s calls were generally consistent, but as a group varied. Batters, like litigators, adapted.
"These responses continue to suggest that, for whatever reason, they either don’t think the Court’s credibility is under serious threat so long as its support erodes mostly from one side of the aisle, or, even worse, they don’t care."
Couldn't your analysis here also be a reasonable explanation for Justice Barrett's response on Fox News yesterday? Ascribing some of their behavior to arrogance may seem reductionistic, but also feels sadly reasonable.
These justices, (particularly the conservative ones, for a number of reasons, not excluding privileged lives), seem to live in a bubble.
Steve nailed it: lazy, uninformed, and they just don’t care.
Justice Barrett admitted that she lives in a bubble, letting her husband serve as a filter for in-flowing information from the outside world.
I think what would be especially instructive would be to read up on social dominance.
I think the dismissive attitude on the right is largely due to a perception that "I'm winning" and "we own you". As childish as that seems, I think we have to admit that the right has a huge capacity for being exactly that: childish.
From Trump's tariffs, to armed masked men delivering a sick sort of revenge, to lying and cheating it's all about dominance.
You can find it on budget priorities and healthcare policies too.
It's hard to elevate the arguments of the right when their behavior betrays damaged childhood psyches that prefer "my turn" over healing.
They are authoritarians because that is probably all they know and you can't show empathy, kindness nor decency when it's your turn "to kick some butt". It's certainly been their view on race where to feel better about oneself they require the sugar high of superiority. Life requires enemies to slay.
A legitimate court would explain its reasoning for anything and everything that it regarded as binding. “Because I said so” is never a good enough reason for regarding any ruling as proper, but this Court seems to believe otherwise. And that is why this Court has lost its legitimacy and its defenders are left with nothing but personal attacks.
Some of the most important principles in our Constitution were addressed by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, and every SCOTUS justice is well aware of these principles. The duty of federal judges is not merely to act like dictators by merely dictating consequences. Their duty is to teach. That's the very reason that very many SCOTUS justices over the past 100 years have re-emphasized the emphasis by Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS in Marbury regarding this crucial duty of all federal judges: "It is emphatically" the "duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Judges' duty is to expressly state the governing law and explain what it means.
The reasons for such rule are crucial. As Chief Justice Marshall and SCOTUS subsequently emphasized, each “Judge” is “required to declare the law” because if he “states it erroneously, his opinion” must “be revised; and if it can have had any influence on the” judgment, it must “be set aside.” Etting v. U.S. Bank, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 59, 75 (1826) (Marshall, C.J.).
As many current SCOTUS justices emphasized in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016), “Article III of the Constitution establishe[d]” a “Judiciary” that must be “independent” of all except the law, so the judiciary was assigned the constitutional “duty to say what the [governing] law is” in “particular cases and controversies;” judges “who apply [a] rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.”
Perhaps the 6 are so focused on achieving the unitary executive, they understand deep down that when the Grail is had the opinion of the Court will no longer matter.
The more that the Court and its defenders are not at all invested in responding to their critics on the critics’ terms, and the more that they are disinterested in shoring up the eroding support for the Court from those who don’t necessarily agree with its bottom lines, the more they are sacrificing the Court’s long-term health for the sake of their short-term ideological agenda.
well said by Steve, also.
First, thanks for acknowledging my request for your opinion on Bluesky yesterday. I’m a proud owner of your book The Shadow Docket. You’re correct that the conservative wing of SCOTUS is gaslighting the public. Just their rulings on “non-resolved” issues tend to make all of us think they are indeed actually resolved in private, without the full period being put on the sentence. We only get an actual explanation of the opinion on shadow docket rulings when a member’s arrogance (so it seems) outweighs their judicial credibility.
One quality the 6 members of the Court’s majority and their defenders seem to have in common, perhaps along with that side entire side of the aisle, is a profound lack of humility.
I have a childhood memory of my mother, not an especially political person, saying that lower courts sometimes made mistakes, but if a case reached the Supreme Court, a just and fair decision would be made. I was too young to form my own opinion, but I felt proud to live in a country where justice would ultimately win out.
Up until Trump's second term, I still respected the Supreme Court, though I found some of their decisions egregious and dangerous, especially their overbroad decision on presidential immunity.
With the emergency docket ruling that effectively allows the administration to play shell games with individuals to deport them to foreign prisons, beyond reach of our justice system, as long as the administration gets them on a plane fast enough, I lost all respect for the Court.
I say this as someone who has often defended the Court's decisions to liberal critics who tend to base their judgment on their personal views of the question at hand rather than on an impartial assessment of the Court's reasoning. If I've lost all confidence in the Court, I'm sure that millions of others have as well, and not just those who are purely partisan. This is the first time in my rather long life that I feel that the very foundations of our democracy are truly at risk.
Trump v. US was, for me, the point where they crossed from an ideologically driven court to a lawless court. They knew what was coming, and they signed on for it.
The next step in this dismal process may be for district courts to stop recognizing any precedential effect for Supreme Court pronouncements. The authority of the Supreme Court to establish precedent rests entirely on a combination of custom and persuasiveness. The latter has been eroding for years in cases with a political dimension, and at this point it is almost entirely gone. That leaves only the bulwark of custom. But repeated abuse is rapidly shredding that, too. What happens when the Supreme Court's authority is recognized only in cases on direct appeal to it, and at the same time the Court is inundated with appeals because lower courts are routinely ignoring it?
Seems reasonable given this court's lack of interest in precedent when it conflicts with outcome.
The SCOTUS 6 is just making stuff up. Full stop. The only coherent thread to their rulings is: the #DirtyOldMan wins.
Perhaps I am being more cynical than is appropriate, but I can't help wondering if the 6 conservatives are using these stays as a way to avoid ruling on the merits until after Trump has left office - thereby allowing Trump to continue doing these things, but then coming in with a merits ruling that prevents any future President from doing them. Especially the firing of "protected" civil servants on "independent" boards. Can't have a future Democratic President sacking all the MAGA employees Trump has embedded in the regulatory agencies!
Thank you for all your piercing analyses of the conduct, contentions and opinions of SCOTUS justices--and for those additional insights about the first Court and the first justices!
Too many of those who criticize the Court's critics presume or pretend that we the people should merely (blindly) revere SCOTUS justices like high priests of some arcane religion that is beyond the grasp of our simple minds. Those people advocate the opposite of the command of the First Amendment that the U.S. government must not attempt or purport to accomplish an "establishment of religion."
As SCOTUS emphasized in Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), “the law” (including the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) “gives judges as persons, or courts as institutions” absolutely “no greater immunity from” our “criticism” (or our Constitution) “than other persons or institutions.” Criticism of judicial conduct “cannot be punished” merely “to protect the court as a mystical entity” or “judges as individuals or as anointed priests set apart from the community and spared the criticism to which” all “other public servants are exposed.”
Speaking of the first justice (James Wilson) and first chief justice (John Jay) and criticism of SCOTUS justices' conduct, contentions and opinions, the opinions of Chief Justice Jay and Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia should always be borne in mind. They explained how the text and structure of our Constitution secured the sovereignty of the people over all our public servants.
The dissenting opinion of Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer in Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (discussing the insights offered by three framers of the Constitution in Chisholm v. Georgia) was highly insightful. They all emphasized the sovereignty of the people, which necessarily includes our right and power to criticize and propose improvements on the manner in which our public servants purport to perform their public service.
Multiple current SCOTUS justices in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) emphasized a related point that all justices always should bear in mind: "In interpreting [our Constitution's] text," we must bear in mind the crucial fact that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." That statement (repeated by generations of SCOTUS justices) underscores a crucial truth about our Constitution and our power and duty to read and think about it for ourselves.
For years (from at least 1787 to 1791), many enlightened Americans studied and discussed the meaning of the text, structure and purpose of our written Constitution (documenting the constitution of one nation of one people) without the benefit of much, if any, insight from any SCOTUS justice. Our Constitution was written, discussed thoroughly and ratified by the people throughout the nation long before any federal judge was appointed. Also without the benefit of any insight by any federal judge, the first 10 amendments (commonly called our Bill of Rights) were discussed by the people, written by Congress and ratified by the states.
The people have every right and reason to think for ourselves and speak about how current SCOTUS justices are violating their oaths of office and our Constitution.
I realize my comment may sound simplistic. I strongly feel, at least in part, the SC is basing some of their shadow docket rulings in trumps favor because deep down they are actually afraid he will defy their orders. Then what once that is broadcast for all the world to see? They'd become irrelevant. They are more than aware it was their decision in early July last year to grant him almost full immunity. They refused to even entertain the idea of Jack Smith possibly winning a judgment against Trump. So instead a snap decision was made to protect Trump at all costs. Constitutional law be damned!
It has been suggested before that the Court may be acting out of fear of Trump, but I'd place my bet on it being due to real support for the unitary executive theory. As one example, it has often been mentioned that Chief Justice Roberts has long supported that theory, long before Donald Trump entered politics.
Yes great point. I've read about this as well. I still feel there is a touch of fear there too. ACB on Fox yesterday trying to put some legitimacy back in the court. Paraphrasing here, she says all we're really doing is making sure the rules of the law are followed. HUH? I guess it's some more of the rules for thee but not for me crap.
I agree that the only rational reason that the SC Conservative Six (SCCS) is operating in this questionable manner is likely quite simplistic. I don’t think that a concern of Trump’s possible ignoring SC findings and making the SC irrelevant is the most obvious thing that is banding the SCCS to abuse the shadow docket, although it most likely is a contributing factor. I propose that personal greed is a much better candidate. That greed might be for better freebee vacations, secret “loans”, selling more books, or even ego that history will favor their contribution to implementation of the President as “Unitary
Executive”
So if this all goes according to plan for trump, (Unitary Executive) I wonder if future history books will accurately tell what part the SC played in this monumental change? Side note, I'm keeping a journal to jot down important events each day. I'd like my grandchildren to understand some of us really did try to save it.
Imo, the lack of opinions means that when they deny these same Emergency applications coming from a Democrat President, SCOTUS has left NO paper trail. Thus, they are free to deny without further explanation.
The attacks coming from the right that you've analyzed here are consistent with the right’s failure to take seriously criticism about every other issue the country is facing. Their discourse is completely degraded by a desire to label everything as a left-wing plot.