Democrats used to be reluctant to criticize the Court. After four years of reactionary jurisprudence, polling suggests they don't have to be so cautious anymore.
Sure, Dobbs - easy call for diminishing respect for the Court...but the fallout has been well beyond even what the majority reckoned, as the crude extremism exhibited by the Red states in attacking women's reproductive rights is unprecedented in its fury (see Idaho and EMTALA, or Texas and its "bounty hunters"), and members of the Dobbs majority seem to be falling in line against lawsuits challenging such anti-abortion extremism.
And let's not forget mifepristone, still not done litigating that issue.
Respect for SCOTUS won't happen until Alito and Thomas are gone, and CJ Roberts can at least have the opportunity to tack toward a "center" long absent here...whether he'll do it is of course a wholly different matter.
The guy who wrote the whacko opinion, totally unmoored from any Constitutional basis, that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” acts, is impervious to any investigation into the reasons a president might choose to violate the law, and cannot have evidence based on “official” acts entered at trial to prove criminality is on a one-person crusade to preserve the institutional integrity of the Court? More like his opinions show his purported institutional concern is a sham. The “Roberts Court” is an apt name.
Sure, Dobbs - easy call for diminishing respect for the Court...but the fallout has been well beyond even what the majority reckoned, as the crude extremism exhibited by the Red states in attacking women's reproductive rights is unprecedented in its fury (see Idaho and EMTALA, or Texas and its "bounty hunters"), and members of the Dobbs majority seem to be falling in line against lawsuits challenging such anti-abortion extremism.
And let's not forget mifepristone, still not done litigating that issue.
Respect for SCOTUS won't happen until Alito and Thomas are gone, and CJ Roberts can at least have the opportunity to tack toward a "center" long absent here...whether he'll do it is of course a wholly different matter.
The guy who wrote the whacko opinion, totally unmoored from any Constitutional basis, that a president has immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” acts, is impervious to any investigation into the reasons a president might choose to violate the law, and cannot have evidence based on “official” acts entered at trial to prove criminality is on a one-person crusade to preserve the institutional integrity of the Court? More like his opinions show his purported institutional concern is a sham. The “Roberts Court” is an apt name.