Absolutely. This makes no sense, and the real dig is to figure out why. Why now? Why these rulings? How do we go from Roberts calling Obamacare a tax out of whole cloth to now this, when the left controls it all?
No, because they are the original jurisdiction for state v state disputes and failed to do their job when half the country was suing the other half of the country.
As much as the Supreme Court is supposed to be about the law, they're a political entity - part of the bureaucracy - as well.
They seem to be focusing on issuing a lot of rulings for cases they can go 9-0 on. I can't help but think that in normal times this would be another 5-4 with a whiny minority opinion about but muh duty to protects. In these times, a bunch of 5-4 rulings in cases like this would basically be as if they were raising a giant "please stack the supreme court" billboard.
It's really rare for any bureaucratic entity anywhere, ever, to volunteer to have its power castrated. Even if members are supposedly on the same side as the people who would be wielding the knife. This has worked against us a lot, but in this case seems to be working for us.
(There could be deeper movements at work, but such things aren't required to explain this.)
If it's just self-interest, look for them to go back to the usual behavior - 5-4 garbage with Roberts being his normal treacherous self - once the threat of court-packing is firmly defeated.
These unanimous good rulings as of late are confusing the hell out of me.
Absolutely. This makes no sense, and the real dig is to figure out why. Why now? Why these rulings? How do we go from Roberts calling Obamacare a tax out of whole cloth to now this, when the left controls it all?
Could it be that SCOTUS is not controlled by communists/deep state and are simply doing their jobs?
No, because they are the original jurisdiction for state v state disputes and failed to do their job when half the country was suing the other half of the country.
Maybe we have the blackmail now.
As much as the Supreme Court is supposed to be about the law, they're a political entity - part of the bureaucracy - as well.
They seem to be focusing on issuing a lot of rulings for cases they can go 9-0 on. I can't help but think that in normal times this would be another 5-4 with a whiny minority opinion about but muh duty to protects. In these times, a bunch of 5-4 rulings in cases like this would basically be as if they were raising a giant "please stack the supreme court" billboard.
It's really rare for any bureaucratic entity anywhere, ever, to volunteer to have its power castrated. Even if members are supposedly on the same side as the people who would be wielding the knife. This has worked against us a lot, but in this case seems to be working for us.
(There could be deeper movements at work, but such things aren't required to explain this.)
If it's just self-interest, look for them to go back to the usual behavior - 5-4 garbage with Roberts being his normal treacherous self - once the threat of court-packing is firmly defeated.
It would seem that SCOTUS is sending a message to the court packing crowd.
If the 9 current justices agree to back whatever ruling any 5 of them concur on unanimously, the additional justices will meaningless.
I can't imagine what else it could mean, it can't be that they all agree on the merits.
Very good explanation. I think you’re right. None of them want the court packed.
I think it also sends a message to any potential nominees, you won't be welcome on bench, we (the rightful justices) will shun you.
Subtle, but anyone in the judiciary probably already knows what the deal is.
Wait what other good things have they decided on besides the CA gun ban?
I think the CA ban removal was a single federal judge for CA, not SC.
What else have they ruled on recently? I guess I missed these things!