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.”
Yeah, I'm functionally illiterate when it comes to speling. But you did get wear eye wuz kumming frumm.
And I'll thank you for a well thought out and expressed reply. Not much of that coming from those supporting this court these days.
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.”
Yeah, here is the thing, unlike yourself, I'm not under the illusion that Constitutional Law is remotely objective. We wouldn't need SCOTUS otherwise. The nine Supreme Court justices are obscenely skilled and could successfully argue that a cat was actually a dog in court.
So the question becomes for me (and the nation) is one of functionality and presidence (I'm totally misspelling this every time now!, sometimes even on purpose). If a law or view of law is to change, why must it change. Violating presedense is dangerous because that bridge can only be burned so many times before SCOTUS becomes invalid and useless. There must be a compelling reason to violate it. Chevron wasn't broken. Chevron was working. Federal agencies weren't going out of their way to manage things well outside their scope, such as the EPA meddling with drug standards or the FDA seeing CAFE requirements.
You (or the far right conservative justices) can argue till your blue the justifications why it was obviously legally justified to reverse Chevron, but the liberals can easily pen why it wasn't. And generally, neither of these arguments would be wrong. Again, Constitutional Law is
not objective. So what is the
need to override a previous decision? Especially in the broader sense of the Chevron decision indicated that the Executive Branch had leniency to execute the law passed by Congress. If the Executive Branch was going too far outside the scope, Congress had the ability the fix that. This makes sense. The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the law... and when it comes to regulation it is
functionally impossible to encode everything. Interpolation and extrapolation will be necessary! It is guaranteed.
But now, with Loper-Bright, regulation needs to be explicit, which isn't remotely reasonable. So SCOTUS took a ruling on executive leniency in regulations that was reasonable and working just fine and broke it, making it harder for Congress to pass laws on regulations and tougher for the Executive Branch to enforce the intent of the Legislative Branch.
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.
Did they? Like they did with birth control access for married and then unmarried couples via a right to privacy? Or how parents have a right to privacy regarding child rearing? Most of the rights recognized by SCOTUS are fabrications of one kind of another, if not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. There is no explicit right to privacy. There is the Tenth Amendment, but that is always ignored by conservatives.
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.
Did they though? Again, via hyper-technicality, they created an argument. Great. So did the Liberals. Had the Liberals had the majority, that would be law. Having a partisan majority is relevant to legal interpretation, but that doesn't mean the argument is sound (see every decision that has been reversed). In a more meaningful way, looking more broadly, the question is 'is a woman privy to herself?' Where does the line of Government intrusion into her life no longer violate the implied Constitutional right to privacy. You can't get blood from a person without a warrant! Yet, somehow, I'm supposed to rise and provide grand applause to a hyper-technical argument that somehow implies that a woman has no right to treat herself as she deems reasonable? If the state can't take my blood without due cause, how in the hell is logical to say a state can enforce my wife to endure pregnancy and give birth, with all of the consequences involved... without relying on pretzel logic? Having personally given a blood sample and observed my wife's pregnancy and daughter's birth, I can easily conclude which one was more involved.
In judicial review, interpretation of the law must make sense. It is contradictory to suggest invading the privacy of someone to take their blood is more invasive that forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and birth...
not without first legally recognizing there is a third party involved, which was not done in Dobbs. It makes no sense! So again, the Roberts court took something that was working and broke it.... and broke it in a manner so brazenly offensive, as not to draw up boundary lines, letting the states try to figure it out for themselves, all the while Thomas was fantasizing about Obergfell and Griswold.
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.”
Again, this is an issue of you being under the illusion that constitutional law is objective. I care what is right. Adherence to constitutional law is important, but such an adherence can not be an excuse to violate people's rights. Justices O'Conner and Kennedy were conservative as all heck, but they understood the importance of rights.
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.
They are meddling with laws that were working and functional, for partisan reasons, because they (and their benefactors) wanted it that way. SCOTUS's job is to see to unresolvable constitutional questions and issues. This court is just paving the road with the wish list of The Heritage Foundation.
I get that my response is soft on Judicial citations, but as I explained, the subjective nature of Constitutional Law really makes those things less important than the broader application of oversight on Constitutional Law. Again, I thank you for your reply as it was stuffed with content and observations that were worth reading.
