What a surprise?
The overtuirning of Roe v Wade….
Making gun possesion legal almost anywhere….
Getting rid of Affirmitive Action…
Judges talking about rewriting stuff that would take away American basic ‘Right’s’?
Some dancing with Rightwingnuts during their after-hours….
Most American thinking negitive about their actions…..
Danm REAL there IS problems among the High Courts members …..
Justices of sharply different legal views have been dinner-party friends, skeet-shooting pals, and opera companions. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s predecessor, Stephen Breyer, and Clarence Thomas—ideological opposites but quite friendly—would whisper and tell jokes during oral arguments. The one-liners and jibes of Antonin Scalia, the ornery conservative, drew laughs from his conservative and liberal colleagues alike. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew frail in her final year, Thomas would offer his arm to ease her descent from the bench. Rancor has always animated the justices’ opinions, but it was limited to pen and paper. On the bench, civility reigned.
Not anymore. I’ve been attending Supreme Court oral arguments since 2013. As The Economist’s SCOTUS correspondent, I’ve watched arguments in the most contentious cases of the past decade—a Church-state fight in 2013; theAffordable Care Act and same-sex marriage showdowns in 2015; clashes overaffirmative action (2015), labor unions (2018), voting rights (2018), andabortion (2020); and dozens of others. Only the justices are privy to the mood in their private conference room where cases are discussed after the hearings. But what I have seen this term on open display inside the courtroom is an obvious departure from the collegiality of years past.
The breaking point was clearly Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling in June that overturned Roe. Several long-standing precedents have fallen in recent years at the hands of the Court’s conservative majority. But in overturning 50 years of abortion rights, the Court was split—and not amicably. The minority did not dissent “respectfully” in Dobbs. Instead the three justices dissented with “sorrow” for the women of America and “for this Court.”
Over the summer, discord stemming from the Dobbs decision was apparent in comments by Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito and the chief justice, John Roberts. Roberts responded to charges that the Court was risking its legitimacy by arguing that mere disagreement with a ruling “is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the Court.” Two weeks later, Kagan seemed to reply to her colleague, saying Americans are bound to lose confidence in a Court that looks “like an extension of the political process.” Then, days before the 2022–23 term, Alito said suggestions that SCOTUS is “becoming an illegitimate institution” amount to questioning the justices’ “integrity” and cross “an important line.”…..
“The Supreme Court has never been so slow,” the AP reports.
“For the first time, the justices have gone more than three months without resolving any cases in which they heard arguments, since their term began in early October.”
“By this point, they always had decided at least one case, and usually a handful… But fall turned to winter without any decisions, and not even a three-week holiday break produced any published opinions.”
Supreme Court could not identify who shared draft abortion opinion
An investigation by the Supreme Court has been unable to determine who disclosed to POLITICO last year a draft opinion overturning the federal constitutional right to abortion, the court said in a statement Thursday.
The internal probe zeroed in on 82 employees who had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, but “was unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the high court said…