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.
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.
Which is more or less exactly what the article says.
TLDR: No, but they may have the sense to not push through the wackiest of the right-wing endeavors.
I think The Atlantic had the right of it in their headline: a conservative Court, not a MAGA one.
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
It would be nice if this was true but I dont see any actual evidence that they are rebuking or censuring the Justices who have been taking
bribesgifts.The worst thing that these conservative Justices dont understand is that the concept of Judicial Review is not codified in the constitution. Congress can at any time revoke that power without any feedback from the Court. If they continue to get caught in corruption, and continue to knock down popular policy it will eventually backfire, and could end up with the Court loosing much of its assumed power.
Frankly all of their choices and actions scream internal coup of the American political system. I honestly believe they expect to turn us into authoritarian executive branch (Unitary executive theory).
They are throwing a hail marry in the last quarter of the game. If they can reverse all the democratic and liberal decisions and restore white men to a position of sole ownership of power and then vest that in the executive branch, then they can rig the system so only “Republicans” can win and run things.
Why else would they risk backlash unless they really think they can “win.” Additionally I wonder if they are convinced that even if they dont win, it will cause a civil war where they can violently take control.
Roberts might care, and he might have some power, but its clear the extremists are driving the conversation and he cant hold them back.
SCOTUS is in trouble and they should be.
Not to mention the affirmative action in colleges today came back- apparently it’s unconstitutional to promote diversity…
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.
Maybe the fault was mine, for including a piece from the Editor’s Blog (which is a bit more informal than most of TPM’s reporting and assumes familiarity with their other work).
I forget who originally said that whenever you see a headline with a question mark (colloquially referred to as the Cavuto Mark, after Fox’s Neil Cavuto, perhaps the most prominent practitioner), the answer is almost always ‘no,’ but it’s been such a piece of conventional wisdom that I didn’t realize it was more widely understood as such.