XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics, sac.politics
XPost: talk.politics.guns

On 28 Sep 2021, Steve Cummings <jthomqx@gmail.com> posted some news:sivmva$3ri$99@news.dns-netz.com:

Let them scream. It's easier to find them when they are screaming so
they can be culled.

Even as the Left wages multifront warfare on the Supreme Court , the
justices continue disproving the hostile narratives.

The most frequent complaint from Democrats and leftist activists trying to bully individual justices into submission is that the bench is biased and skewed far to the right. This accusation is not only hypocritical, given
that Democrats didn't complain about partisanship on the bench during
years when justices were mostly left-leaning, but it is also easily
debunked. Many of the court’s recent opinions show a bench filled with independent minds who agree or disagree with colleagues depending on the
cases at hand, rather than pre-determined ideology.

BIDEN TRIES TO SHAKE LOW MARKS ON ECONOMY WITH ‘BIDENOMICS’ PUSH

This term, for example, the Supreme Court has produced only two opinions , Samia v. U.S. and Jones v. Hendrix, with ideological splits in which the
six justices commonly called conservative remained in a bloc against the
three commonly called liberal. The other 50 cases decided so far this term
have seen almost dizzying combinations of justices on each side.

Rather than the court being dominated by hard-line conservatives, it is
the three most reliably conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel
Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — who have dissented from the majority most often. Nearly half the decisions, 23 of them, have been decided unanimously,
which indicates the whole notion of a court riven by ideological war is nonsense.

A few major decisions are yet to be released, including 303 Creative v.
Elenis, which asks whether the state can compel speech and force creators
to violate their consciences, and Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard,
which could upend affirmative action admissions policies in public universities.

When those decisions are announced beginning on Thursday, the public
should not fall for facile analyses casting each result in political,
rather than legal, terms. The notable lack of predicted polarization on
the bench this term is a sign the system is working well. Far from
marching in lockstep toward some right-wing worldview, the justices are engaging each other and working to find common ground.

One such example of this balance is the repeated alliance against civil
power that has formed between Gorsuch, appointed by President Donald
Trump, and President Joe Biden's appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson. In four opinions, Gorsuch and Jackson have teamed up to oppose government
overreach.

In Tyler v. Hennepin County, for example, Gorsuch wrote a concurring
opinion agreeing with the court’s decision to side with a woman against Minnesota’s unlawful seizure of her home equity, but on different legal
grounds than the majority cited. Jackson was the only other justice to
sign this concurrence.

Likewise, in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service, Gorsuch joined a
concurring opinion by Jackson that argued the IRS’s no-notice powers, or
its ability to obtain bank records for tax collection without notifying
third parties, is more limited than the court majority indicated.

This jurisprudential alliance is not unique on this bench. Justice Amy
Coney Barrett has sided with her liberal colleagues on a number of death penalty cases. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have shown themselves just as likely to seek middle ground as to set hard conservative lines. In an Alabama voting rights case decided this month,
they joined the liberals Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in a 5-
4 ruling that infuriated many conservative legal experts.

Such jurisprudential flexibility is a testament to the justices’
dedication to the institution they serve. They are not boxed in by their
own political preferences because those preferences have nothing to do,
and should have nothing to do, with the job they have been given. Despite
what the Left wants when its preferred justices have a majority, and
excoriate when they don't, a justice's responsibility is to interpret and uphold the law as it is written. Each may differ in their interpretations,
but that matters less than that they remain bound to the text of the Constitution and Congress’s statutes.

This is the Left’s real complaint against the court. Leftists want
justices to abuse their judicial authority to impose a political agenda,
not justices who limit themselves to the content and intent of
democratically enacted laws. The public should ignore their hysteria, just
as the justices themselves, to their credit, usually do.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism- unity/despite-lefts-hysteria-the-supreme-court-is-working-as-it-should

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)