There is a more fundamental reason few people are able to put the court's decisions in context: most people have extreme difficulty believing anyone of good faith wouldn't reach the same conclusions they would. And they certainly don't understand how anyone else could understand what is at stake in a different way than they do.
It's why so many people accuse the court of corruption or of engaging in some kind of illegitimate partisan hackery. It's just really hard for most people to imagine how anyone could not see things in the clear way they do so their must be some illegitimate influence.
This is especially true regarding the stakes. It's hard for people who see the Trump administraton as a serious threat to democracy to understand how anyone of good faith could not see that as the only issue of importance.
I appreciate the first part of the post acknowledging the court is extremely conservative while not completely carrying water for the Trump administration. I worry the second part of this post reads as if to "both-sides" what the court is doing. Just because the court isn't completely acting like a MAGA-idealized version of the court doesn't mean they aren't speed running a lot of conservative political goals that have been decades in the making.
I think it's easy to make the case that yes the court acting in an extremely conservative way, yes the court is deciding all sorts of things that seem to be influenced by conservative political goals, yes the court has been very close to doing even more things in line with conservative political goals, but the court isn't just rubber stamping whatever the Trump administration wants.
It doesn't have to be the case that if the court isn't completely on one end of the spectrum or the other then it's right in the middle (or that that's somehow good).
Two things that bother me about the court and its coverage:
1. I often think the judges are being intellectually dishonest. Some examples:
- Roberts "we are just umpires calling balls and strikes" analogy is hard to square with a lot of decisions,
- Roberts footnote in Trinity Lutheran about it "being just about playground resurfacing" to SCOTUS now requiring public funds to be used in some cases for private religious education,
- The Court's steady evisceration of the VRA despite prior assurances to the contrary in opinions,
- Their cherry picked use of history.
I'd much prefer the Court more explicitly state their agenda and biases (e.g., expansion of gun rights, narrow the separation of church and state, make it harder for people to vote, increase Presidential power, reinterpret discrimination laws to protect white people). SCOTUS acknowledging and owning that they have an agenda would make it easier to understand many of their decisions.
2. I wish the press and commentariat would more accurately describe what the Court actually held in cases. A lot of progressive talk about Calais has said things like "the Court just eliminated Black peoples' right to participate in the political process". Huh, what? No that's not what they ruled. I like the Strict Scrutiny podcast, but they can be over the top doomsdayish about most decisions, which detracts from their credibility and contribution to healthy debate about the Court. It would help if there was more accurate and reasoned reporting on the Court's decisions.
This analysis implicitly treats the Court as a unified entity. Is that the best way to analyze it on this dimension? Michael Dorf's note on SCOTUSblog contains an interesting argument against your claim that the conservative wing is a traditionally conservative wing.
There is a more fundamental reason few people are able to put the court's decisions in context: most people have extreme difficulty believing anyone of good faith wouldn't reach the same conclusions they would. And they certainly don't understand how anyone else could understand what is at stake in a different way than they do.
It's why so many people accuse the court of corruption or of engaging in some kind of illegitimate partisan hackery. It's just really hard for most people to imagine how anyone could not see things in the clear way they do so their must be some illegitimate influence.
This is especially true regarding the stakes. It's hard for people who see the Trump administraton as a serious threat to democracy to understand how anyone of good faith could not see that as the only issue of importance.
I appreciate the first part of the post acknowledging the court is extremely conservative while not completely carrying water for the Trump administration. I worry the second part of this post reads as if to "both-sides" what the court is doing. Just because the court isn't completely acting like a MAGA-idealized version of the court doesn't mean they aren't speed running a lot of conservative political goals that have been decades in the making.
I think it's easy to make the case that yes the court acting in an extremely conservative way, yes the court is deciding all sorts of things that seem to be influenced by conservative political goals, yes the court has been very close to doing even more things in line with conservative political goals, but the court isn't just rubber stamping whatever the Trump administration wants.
It doesn't have to be the case that if the court isn't completely on one end of the spectrum or the other then it's right in the middle (or that that's somehow good).
Two things that bother me about the court and its coverage:
1. I often think the judges are being intellectually dishonest. Some examples:
- Roberts "we are just umpires calling balls and strikes" analogy is hard to square with a lot of decisions,
- Roberts footnote in Trinity Lutheran about it "being just about playground resurfacing" to SCOTUS now requiring public funds to be used in some cases for private religious education,
- The Court's steady evisceration of the VRA despite prior assurances to the contrary in opinions,
- Their cherry picked use of history.
I'd much prefer the Court more explicitly state their agenda and biases (e.g., expansion of gun rights, narrow the separation of church and state, make it harder for people to vote, increase Presidential power, reinterpret discrimination laws to protect white people). SCOTUS acknowledging and owning that they have an agenda would make it easier to understand many of their decisions.
2. I wish the press and commentariat would more accurately describe what the Court actually held in cases. A lot of progressive talk about Calais has said things like "the Court just eliminated Black peoples' right to participate in the political process". Huh, what? No that's not what they ruled. I like the Strict Scrutiny podcast, but they can be over the top doomsdayish about most decisions, which detracts from their credibility and contribution to healthy debate about the Court. It would help if there was more accurate and reasoned reporting on the Court's decisions.
This analysis implicitly treats the Court as a unified entity. Is that the best way to analyze it on this dimension? Michael Dorf's note on SCOTUSblog contains an interesting argument against your claim that the conservative wing is a traditionally conservative wing.