If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.
What do you mean by “partisan hacks”?
What specifically did “they” do that constitutes as “partisan hack”?
Or is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion? The Left and Right are known for deriding opinions of the court as “partisan” because of, ostensibly for some but in fact for others, disapproval of the decision.
The right-wing justices have broken with Precedence like it didn't mean anything. Their ruling on Loper-Bright, reversing Chevron was nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law. Alito did some creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history when they killed Dobbs, and then leaving it somewhat unresolved, while Thomas was fantasizing about ending Obgerfell and Griswold. In the Trump case, they went well beyond the scope of the actual case and then gave POTUS monarch like power. And finally, CJ Roberts didn't want to hear about issues like "standing" in a case that they (the right-wing) wanted to intervene in.
The right-wing justices have broken with Precedence like it didn't mean anything.
Surely if you’re capitalizing for dramatic emphasis you can use the correct word of “precedent.”
Their ruling on Loper-Bright, reversing Chevron was nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law.
You undoubtedly disagree with the opinion. You’re disagreement doesn’t render the decision “nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law.” After all, the case involved the overall question of which entity determines what the laws says, including an ambiguity in the law, and the Court affirms its the judiciary, not the agency within the executive branch. “But the Court did not extend similar deference to agency resolutions of questions of
law. It instead made clear, repeatedly, that “[t]he interpretation of the meaning of statutes, as applied to justiciable controversies,” was “exclusively a judicial function.”
The APA Section 706, rather than deprive, diminish, or transfer the judiciary’s authority to determine what the law says, affirms judicial authority to determine what the law says.
“To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an
agency action. The reviewing court shall—…
(2)hold unlawful and set aside
agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
(A)
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B)
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C)
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;” 5 U.S.C. 706
The majority did not neglect to observe the APA, 5, United State Code Section 706, affirmed judicial authority to determine what the law says. “The APA thus codifies for agency cases the unremarkable, yet elemental proposition reflected by judicial practice dating back to
Marbury: that courts decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.”
In other words, the decision wasn’t a “power grab
away” from the agency because under the Constitution the agency was never granted the authority to determine what the law says.
Alito did some creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history when they killed Dobbs
No, this ^^ was the decision of Roe v Wade.
In Roe, the majority relied upon a judicially created doctrine to arrive at a meaning of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that protects abortion as a privacy right within the concept of Liberty of the DPC, contrary to the long understood meaning of Due Prcoess Clause.
Perhaps you’ve heard or read of this judicially created doctrine recognizing the existence of unenumerated rights in the text of the Constitution that where the text does not support such an interpretation. The judicial doctrine, infamously known to many conservatives, whereas lovingly embraced by many liberals and moderates, is Substantive Due Process.
The long historical meaning of the phrase Due Process originates by first appearing in a 1354 English statute (“No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law”). Sir Edward Coke, commenting upon the phrase Due Process of Law in the “Institutes of the Laws of England” spilled ink to explain the DPC referred to the procedural safeguards for the deprivation of rights and liberties, such the procedural protections for the deprivation of rights and liberties enumerated in the Magna Charta. “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor shall we come upon him or send against him, except by a legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” See Magna Charta.
For the sake of brevity, and avoid potentially boring you with several centuries of English judicial, American colonial and early U.S. judicial, development of the meaning of Due Process, the clause referred to procedural protections to deprive rights and liberties. After all the plain text the legal authority to take away life, liberty, and property. “
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 14th Amendment. The plain text necessarily acknowledges the authority of the State to take away those three rights where due process is followed to do so. Roe and its progeny of recognizing unenumerated rights and elevating them beyond the reach of procedural protections simply doesn’t adhere to the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.
The Dobbs majority, contrary to your assertion, invoked historical evidence to sufficiently arrive at a historical meaning contrary to Roe.
Are you familiar with the Lawrence v Texas decision? This case ignored years of its own precedent, decades of its own precedent, to recognize a privacy interest within the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment DPC. See opinion here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html
The Lawrence decision fits within your parameter of “creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history” as it overturned a 17 year old precedent of Bowers v Hardwick. Based upon your parameters there’s a reasonable expectation you’ll have similar derision for the disdain for the “breaking of Precedence like it didn’t mean anything.”
The SCOTUS bench is doing as it pleases, and is giving little care to principles that have made SCOTUS viable in our Government.
Nothing you posted makes this demonstration and the conspicuous lack of a substantive support for your post presently resigns me to at least tentatively conclude your objection is the decisions are contrary to your own beliefs, as opposed to any substantive objection rooted in the text, language, and meaning of the law(s) itself.
This isn’t to deny SCOTUS conservatives as “partisan hacks” as I can’t show such a negative. However, these decisions do not demonstrate “partisan hacks” as at least two of those decisions you reference have a reasonably sound foundation within the text and meaning of the law(s). In other words, they reached a meaning/interpretation of the law consistent and in adherence to discovering and discerning what the law says. As opposed to a meaning and interpretation not supported by the plain text and historical understanding and conjured within the mind of a justice and inspired/conceived because of their own personal/political/ideological beliefs.
***The immunity decision has flaws, one such flaw is departure from notion of a presumption of immunity/privilbe which can be rebutted.****
