Once Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, the Left’s campaign to discredit, denigrate, and attack the Supreme Court reached steroid levels of crazy. It’s what happens when children don’t get their way. It’s all part of the liberal entitlement that they should win every election, argument, and legislative battle because their feelings about the issue are superior. Feelings are not evidence or building blocks to making an argument. It only makes you an emotional headcase who needs to be jacked full of Ativan and chained to a bed, but I digress.
With one of the cases answering the question of presidential immunity and Trump, it could have implications on the future of the indictments brought against the former president by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It also has poured fuel on the Left’s insane pyre being stoked to burn the third branch of government. There’s this narrative that the Court is rogue, biased, or right-wing. That’s hardly the case. Most legal observers who are not snorting crack cocaine, like the ones featured on MSNBC, know this; even the late Justice Ginsburg knew this, too.
Most opinions are not even close where there is a sizable, diverse majority. Most of the Supreme Court’s machinations are centered on lawyer’s work, another way of saying it’s torturously boring for most Americans. Seldom do controversial, so-called politically charged cases come before the Court, but that bit of logic is often lost among those in the progressive mob. The Washington Examiner did an analysis of this year’s docket and found that the trite narrative liberals have used to debase the Court is wrong and that the institution isn’t moving at a snail’s pace. It’s getting through its caseload:
The justices so far have returned decisions in 47 cases out of the 65 they heard this term, meaning they have completed roughly 72% of the docket. Despite the political narrative of a sharply divided court driven by its conservative majority, only 13 cases have been decided by a 6-3 vote thus far, and an even fewer five cases have split neatly along ideological lines, according to a Washington Examiner analysis.
More rulings are expected to be released on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday this week in cases that will range from a landmark decision involving former President Donald Trump‘s claims of broad immunity from prosecution to a high-profile ruling on the 1984 precedent known as the Chevron doctrine, which gives broad deference to agencies in legal disputes over regulations.
[…]
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously on 24 of the 47 decisions it has handed down thus far, though the most agreeable decisions are typically released first. But in a 6-3 ruling last week in Diaz v. United States, Jackson found herself aligned with the Republican-appointed justices who sided with prosecutors against a woman who claimed to be a “blind” drug mule, while Gorsuch joined with her fellow Democratic-appointed Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in dissent.
In a different 6-3 decision surrounding the Armed Career Criminal Act, Gorsuch wrote a majority opinion with which Kagan and Sotomayor agreed, while Jackson chose to join Kavanaugh’s written dissent alongside Justice Samuel Alito.
Another remarkable trend cropping up this term involves the 10 appeals that came from the most conservative federal appellate court in the nation, the Louisiana-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which have ultimately resulted in several reversals. Of the 17 active judges on the 5th Circuit, only five were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 — with four Republican-appointed justices joining all three Democratic-appointed jurists — to uphold the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau‘s funding mechanism. That case stemmed from a 5th Circuit ruling that scrutinized the CFPB’s direct funding from the Federal Reserve, marking the first of three major rebukes against that circuit court.
[…]
The left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report on May 15 claiming the 5th Circuit was inviting the “right-wing extremists” on the Supreme Court to “take sweeping action to roll back decades of progress.” But the Supreme Court’s reversals at the 5th Circuit haven’t fulfilled that narrative.
Recommended
Alas, no one knows where the winds of the Court will blow on anything. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who tweeted last week’s decisions, also noted that the liberal narrative of a right-wing, divided court was nonexistent. Also, stop reporting on how the public feels about the Supreme Court. It’s an institution that’s not supposed to care about approval ratings. They’re irrelevant to these lifetime appointees. The justices aren’t supposed to care or know what society wants—that’s the legislature's job.
Anyways, happy SCOTUS week, everyone. It’s probably going to be total chaos.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member