This bench has been reversing course across the board because the justices thought the decisions they were reversing were legislated from the bench.
It's called ignoring precedents because you disagreee with them.
Not exactly -- the justices do explain what they think is wrong with the precedents. Ignoring precedents would mean not even addressing them. But if you mean it's called
overruling precedents because you disagree with them, then yes, that's it in a nutshell. Do you disapprove of that? Do you think in Loving v Virginia the court should have upheld the old Pace precedent even though they disagreed with it, because it was a precedent, and ruled it was okay for states to continue to prohibit interracial sex?
As evidence, you bring up:
A piece of legislation stopped them from ruling you can fire people for being in gay relationships.
Yet, they were able to get rid of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to abortion, by simply saying a bunch of mumbo jumbo like
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." saying this EVEN AS THEY TOOK AWAY THAT RIGHT BY CONTORTED INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THEY DENY HAVING EXISTED!
Prior to the Dobbs decision in 2022, the U.S. Constitution was interpreted to include a right to abortion.
You say all that as though capitalizing and bolding words makes interpretation more than interpretation. Judges still have to decide what words mean, and they still have to make up their own minds and not be slavishly devoted to automatically agreeing with their predecessors, unless you want interracial sex to be illegal forever just because somebody once decided it was. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion"
is true. So somebody has to decide which if any constitutional provision implicitly protects it. The procedure they use to decide that isn't magic; it's normal human thought -- an application of logic, experience, analogy, pattern matching, emotion, bias, and so forth. That's the same way they decide whether a federal law that doesn't mention sexual orientation prohibits you from firing an employee for gay sex. That the former involves an alleged constitutional right doesn't make the procedure different; they still need to decide if the people alleging that it's a constitutional right have made a solid case. If you're arguing they should have treated it as a genuine constitutional right because some earlier judges said it was and that makes it so, then you're in effect arguing that the SCOTUS must have made a mistake because the SCOTUS is infallible.
They ruled you can't fire people for gay sex because a 60's-era federal civil rights law prohibits different conditions of employment depending on sex. Well, if you order your male employees not to screw men but you don't order your female employees not to screw men, that's a different condition of employment depending on sex. To my mind that's a way more simple and straightforward and obviously correct line of reasoning than the arguments in either Roe or Dobbs. YMMV.
This right was established by two landmark Supreme Court cases,
And the right of states to criminalize white-on-black sex was established by a landmark SC case, and reaffirmed by the infamous Plessy. Does that make criminalizing it a legit constitutional right in your book?
and those precedents which these so-called "justices" swore to protect, were casually dismissed with a lofty sounding "nuh-uh!"
Quote them.
You don't seem to understand what it is SC nominees are swearing to when they try to reassure senators about stare decisis. They never promise not to reverse cases. They're only promising to take precedent seriously and to reverse settled law only for good reasons and after giving due weight to the importance of the public's being able to rely on stability. In the Trump appointees' view, they did that. Whether they in fact did so is of course dubious; but you can't prove they failed to live up to their commitment
by misquoting them. No, they didn't say "nuh-uh!"
The constitution does say that if it doesn't deny a right, that right falls to the citizens.
Quote it. It says pretty much the opposite of that. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." "Or" means "or". That seems to me to make it pretty clear that among the rights the Constitution doesn't deny,
some of them fall to the citizens, while the remainder are up to the States, to confer or withhold as each State's government sees fit.
So they carried on:
"a right must be "deeply rooted" in the nation's history", which the Constitution does NOT say afaik. They then capriciously reject the idea that abortion rights were part of a broader right to privacy protected by the Constitution. DESPITE PROMISING TO HONOR PRECEDENTS.
As further excuse they came up with this classic piece of lamebrainery:
"Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided and that relying too heavily on precedent in this case would be a mistake"
So, "not rooted deeply" enough, apparently, as if to say "We promised to honor precedents, but we were only kidding."
Then they appoint themselves arbiters of rationality, without actually indulging in any such thing:
"abortion regulations should be evaluated under the less stringent "rational basis" standard, rather than the "strict scrutiny" standard previously applied"
Such weasleldom... "should be evaluated" - By SCOTUS, of course. Because they are the embodiment of a rationality standard that cannot be iterated in this context without contradicting themselves.
They lied in their confirmation hearings, and almost killed themselves trying to make "rational" their utter disregard for precedent.
"Rational basis review" is generally deferential to legislative decisions, such as the LAW they OVERTURNED on this specious excuse. Note that laws reviewed under so-called "rational basis" are almost always upheld as constitutional, as the standard presents a very low bar for lawmakers to clear.
IANAL so the above is a reflects a layperson's dismay with what appears to be a clearly partisan decision that was awkwardly cobbled together to please their orange client. If B#20 has constitutional law under his belt as well as he seems to know physics, I'd love for him to make actual sense of that SCOTUS decision so it doesn't appear that they are lying bastards who will casually shred the Constitution to please the grifter who protects their grifting.
Who, me? I'm pro-choice. That SCOTUS decision doesn't make sense to me either. I long for the days when the partisan hacks were split 4-to-4 so Anthony Kennedy got to make all the decisions. Good times. It's no reason to make believe that the Constitution is clearer on this question than it actually is, or that the current judges are cartoon villains. They're normal humans with a normal mix of strengths and weaknesses, doing what they think is right.
Moreover, as you say, "rational basis review" is generally deferential to legislative decisions, but "the LAW they OVERTURNED on this specious excuse"
was not a legislative decision. RvW was a judicial decision. There never was any federal legislative decision for them to defer to, so instead they deferred to Mississippi's legislative decision.
That is why enacting RvW as a federal law would make a difference!
