That’s one way to look at it. Another way is to say that the choices is between the US having one party act as if it believes in democracy, or zero parties that do.
I think evil often prevails because it’s easier, but there are purposes toward which prevailing isn’t the best thing anybody can do.
Hell, yes. Alito even grew an evil goatee and has been on a scolding tour of anyone criticizing the SC. His attitude is nakedly defiant.
Don’t they have cookies, too?
Good. Supreme Court cases should be based on what the law is, not on public opinion. That’s by design.
It should be based on legal principles and precedents, not religious dogma.
This article is pretty on point. The conservatives on the court are getting exactly what they wanted. Did they think the deal was that people were going to like them in the process?
While they’ve already gone further than I would have predicted, I do think they are going to stop short of being explicit about gutting more voting rights - mostly because they currently have a legal system set up where they can arbitrarily uphold nay state law they want to - no real benefit to poking the nest any further as far as I can see.
Of course they did. F****ers.
Cite that Supreme Court rulings have been based on “religious dogma”, please.
It’s a fundamental truth of the Universe, that it’s easier to destroy, than to create. The Democrats are trying to build a system that helps people, and all the Republicans are looking to do is blow up everything the Democrats are doing.
Coming up with a comprehensive tax plan, welfare plan, healthcare plan, infrastructure plan, and everything else is incredibly complex, requires balancing the needs and wants of many competing factions, and detailed information on exactly what everything costs, and where tax revenues will come from.
Just screaming “That’s Socialist! Let the FreeeeeeMarket handle it!!!” takes no effort at all.
Cynical question.
Yeah, they do.
I mean at root, entitlement in various forms underlies a lot of pathology on the far right. It reminds me of how the far right love to say ‘let the market decide’ but then when women said they didn’t want to date Trump supporters, they got enraged and played the victim because they felt entitled to female attention. The market decided and not in their favor.
So I’m sure they expect to pass rulings that harm and enrage large percentages of the country but still feel entitled to respect and adulation for it.
McGowan v. Maryland
First of all, that was 61 years ago.
Furthermore, the Court said that while Sunday closing laws may have had their genesis in religion centuries earlier, by 1961 such laws had a legitimate secular purpose, providing a day of rest to workers.
OK then Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania
And for the future, look at Thomas’ opinion in Dobbs.
In that case, the Court ruled 7-2, (including Breyer and Kagan) that the government had not violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which was the issue before them.
Just because a case touches on religion doesn’t mean that the ruling was “based on religious dogma”. I’m sure that Justices Kagan and Thomas have quite different religious views, for example.
What’s that noise? Sounds like goalposts being moved.
What goalposts? The original claim that the Supreme Court “rules based on religious dogma” has NOT been demonstrated, let alone proven, with the examples given.