A short but cogent analysis of the unexpectedly not-terrible SCOTUS emerging at the tail end of this term. Josh Marshall is a smart observer of government, and he makes an interesting argument that I think has some real value.
What unfortunate timing
If you look at the last paragraph, Marshall mentions exactly this possibility.
The extent of their “good” behavior has merely been that they voted the status quo in a few cases, and the bad is that they stepped us backwards on others.
I think this is a common tactic for conservatives both in the courts and in the legislature; the only options they offer are either exhaust their opposition to the point that “things stay the same” feels like a fair compromise, or regress. A recent example would be the debt ceiling negotiations; democrats got nothing while making austerity concessions. But it was painted as if not arbitrarily plunging the world into economic armaggedon was some great win. In reality that shouldn’t be a thing that’s on the table to begin with.
My faith in the SC is still very, very low. The main reason the SC didn’t side with independent state legislature theory is simply that they saw it as a threat to their own power as SC. As we see with Dobbs and now affirmative action, if it doesn’t effect them they have no problem undermining it.
No, the conservatives ruling the SCOTUS are not awesome. They know that two of their rank were caught red handed in corruption. So they’re rejecting the small, easy right wing nonsense to appear reasonable, while taking a chunk out of America with the Affirmative Action ruling.
TLDR: No, but they may have the sense to not push through the wackiest of the right-wing endeavors.
Haha, this aged poorly.
I don’t think it was good when it was new. The SC was never awesome, and now they’re mostly bastards.
First, we should note that the term isn’t over. Major decisions on affirmative action and student debt, among others, are still to come. So it’s premature to evaluate the term before it’s complete.
Yeah, you can say that again
You mean the Scotus that overturned Roe v. Wade? No.
I don’t imagine you actually read the article? Otherwise you wouldn’t be arguing against a position that neither the article nor I take.
You’re right I didn’t, and maybe I should have, but I would argue that it’s also just unhealthy for an article to have a title that’s completely antithetical to what it’s actually saying.
