The New York Times scoop about the Clean Power Plan case SCOTUS memos highlights the conservative justices' brazen disregard for their own rules — both then and now.
So clarification of Roberts’ memorable statement from his confirmation hearing, job is calling ‘balls’ for Republican administrations & corporations and calling ‘strikes’ for Democratic administrations & individuals’ rights and also to pitch and bat to achieve his desired outcome.
The six conservative justices, like gods grandly pronouncing, seem to care little for the lives their opaque shadow docket decisions affect. O to be elite as they!
Scotus, rather than the protector of constitutional reason, has become a lesser thing than the lower courts, all conjecture, devoid of facts and reason, and predictable results, trying to architect outcomes on a whim, with a wink and a nudge to lawful structure in about the same way as Madlibs are to story. It's hard to imagine making a worse wreck of it, but never underestimate the hubris.
I'm truly grateful for your clarification of the NY Times piece, which was pretty overwhelming in scope. Now, I can go back to that massive reporting package and dig deeper because you pointed the flashlight.
Thank you, Mr. Geidner. SCOTUS deserves a very serious investigation which should have been triggered when the clarence thomas situation came to light.
At some point, inconsistency stops being jurisprudence and starts looking like institutional failure. John Roberts has presided over a Court that bends its own standards depending on the moment—expanding power here, restraining it there, often without a clear throughline. That’s not stewardship—it’s drift. The shadow docket, the shifting logic, the selective urgency—it all adds up.
Compare that to Roger Taney, whose legacy was defined by a single catastrophic misjudgment. Roberts risks something different but equally damaging: a pattern of decisions that erode confidence case by case. Courts don’t collapse overnight—they lose legitimacy one ruling at a time.
What we now have in hand is proof of what we thought and expected (and any among us who didn't should have): This SCOTUS is making it up as it goes along, inventing and ignoring procedures and legal principles as needed to obtain pre-decided, ideologically desired, results.
Bear in mind that the power - really the only power - of any court is the acceptance of its authority and legitimacy. Even violent enforcement of its rulings requires that acceptance among the enforcers. And the loss of respect and legitimacy of this court has gone so far that I can't help but both wonder and fear there may soon come a time when people in some position of power start saying "I don't care what the Supreme Court says, I'm doing it anyway."
So clarification of Roberts’ memorable statement from his confirmation hearing, job is calling ‘balls’ for Republican administrations & corporations and calling ‘strikes’ for Democratic administrations & individuals’ rights and also to pitch and bat to achieve his desired outcome.
The six conservative justices, like gods grandly pronouncing, seem to care little for the lives their opaque shadow docket decisions affect. O to be elite as they!
Excellent. Just excellent. Tying this all together...perfect.
Some excellent commentary here.
Scotus, rather than the protector of constitutional reason, has become a lesser thing than the lower courts, all conjecture, devoid of facts and reason, and predictable results, trying to architect outcomes on a whim, with a wink and a nudge to lawful structure in about the same way as Madlibs are to story. It's hard to imagine making a worse wreck of it, but never underestimate the hubris.
I'm truly grateful for your clarification of the NY Times piece, which was pretty overwhelming in scope. Now, I can go back to that massive reporting package and dig deeper because you pointed the flashlight.
Thank you, Mr. Geidner. SCOTUS deserves a very serious investigation which should have been triggered when the clarence thomas situation came to light.
At some point, inconsistency stops being jurisprudence and starts looking like institutional failure. John Roberts has presided over a Court that bends its own standards depending on the moment—expanding power here, restraining it there, often without a clear throughline. That’s not stewardship—it’s drift. The shadow docket, the shifting logic, the selective urgency—it all adds up.
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/guest-opinion-stephen-e-herbits-on
Compare that to Roger Taney, whose legacy was defined by a single catastrophic misjudgment. Roberts risks something different but equally damaging: a pattern of decisions that erode confidence case by case. Courts don’t collapse overnight—they lose legitimacy one ruling at a time.
FYI there’s a typo in your quotation of Samuel Alito.
You wrote: “If we fail to stay the rule … our resolution of the merits will not merit,”
The original text ends in “…will not matter.”
TERM LIMITS.
Roberts does what he does...because he can, end of.
This might well be the most dishonest, hypocritical, corrupt Court in our nation's history.
What we now have in hand is proof of what we thought and expected (and any among us who didn't should have): This SCOTUS is making it up as it goes along, inventing and ignoring procedures and legal principles as needed to obtain pre-decided, ideologically desired, results.
Bear in mind that the power - really the only power - of any court is the acceptance of its authority and legitimacy. Even violent enforcement of its rulings requires that acceptance among the enforcers. And the loss of respect and legitimacy of this court has gone so far that I can't help but both wonder and fear there may soon come a time when people in some position of power start saying "I don't care what the Supreme Court says, I'm doing it anyway."
Jail this turd liar criminal
Proof that they are politicians in robes.