Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
As Supreme Court's standing falters, Alito pushes flawed defense
The public approval of the SCOTUS has crashed due the actions of partisan hacks like Alito. The overturning of Roe was not simply a poorly written decision that relied on on 16th century witch hunter but was a rejection of the fundamental premise that American is a land of laws and precedents cannot be overturned just because some partisan hacks have gained control
Alito is a partisan hack and is upset that people are calling him a partisan hack.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/supreme-courts-standing-falters-alito-pushes-flawed-defense-rcna49939?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma
When it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court’s institutional credibility, center-left justices have been unsubtle in their warnings. For example, in December 2021, during oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the case that would ultimately serve as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade — Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked a memorable rhetorical question.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
Six months later, when the Dobbs ruling was formally released, Sotomayor joined with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elana Kagan, writing in a dissent that the decision “undermines the Court’s legitimacy.”
A couple of weeks ago, Kagan advanced the conversation during remarks at Northwestern University School of Law. “When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem — and that’s when there ought to be a problem,” Kagan said.
Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs ruling, has heard the concerns — and he clearly has a problem with them. The Wall Street Journal reported:
The article did not quote the far-right jurist further — I suspect he didn’t elaborate — though the ambiguity leaves some unanswered questions. If Kagan and others have crossed “an important line,” what exactly does Alito see as the appropriate consequence? Is he of the opinion that people are free to disagree with the high court, but not question its legitimacy?
What’s more, Alito hasn’t exactly presented a defense of the institution. Indeed, in his comments to The Wall Street Journal, he didn’t even make an argument, per se. The justice’s pitch, in effect, is that people shouldn’t question the integrity of the court or its members because, well, just because.......
But as The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus explained in a recent column, the justices’ own rulings have been every bit as important.
When Republican-appointed justices ignore precedents they’d previously said they’d uphold, it undermines the court’s legitimacy. When Republican-appointed justices deliver overtly political speeches, it undermines the court’s legitimacy. When Republican-appointed justices take aim at fundamental American principles, such as the separation of church and state, in displays of raw power, it undermines the court’s legitimacy.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she asked. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
Six months later, when the Dobbs ruling was formally released, Sotomayor joined with Justices Stephen Breyer and Elana Kagan, writing in a dissent that the decision “undermines the Court’s legitimacy.”
A couple of weeks ago, Kagan advanced the conversation during remarks at Northwestern University School of Law. “When courts become extensions of the political process, when people see them as extensions of the political process, when people see them as trying just to impose personal preferences on a society irrespective of the law, that’s when there’s a problem — and that’s when there ought to be a problem,” Kagan said.
Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the Dobbs ruling, has heard the concerns — and he clearly has a problem with them. The Wall Street Journal reported:
In a comment Tuesday to The Wall Street Journal, Justice Alito said: “It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions and to criticize our reasoning as they see fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution or questioning our integrity crosses an important line.”
The article did not quote the far-right jurist further — I suspect he didn’t elaborate — though the ambiguity leaves some unanswered questions. If Kagan and others have crossed “an important line,” what exactly does Alito see as the appropriate consequence? Is he of the opinion that people are free to disagree with the high court, but not question its legitimacy?
What’s more, Alito hasn’t exactly presented a defense of the institution. Indeed, in his comments to The Wall Street Journal, he didn’t even make an argument, per se. The justice’s pitch, in effect, is that people shouldn’t question the integrity of the court or its members because, well, just because.......
But as The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus explained in a recent column, the justices’ own rulings have been every bit as important.
The inflamed public reaction stems also from the fact that the law changed because the court’s membership changed. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was the culmination of a political and politicized process to bolster the conservative majority by any means necessary. And this stacked court has — time after time, but most flagrantly in overruling Roe v. Wade — abandoned normal rules of restraint, twisted or ignored doctrine, and substituted raw power to achieve its desired result.... And this is how the institution undermines its own legitimacy. If the court behaves like just another political body, it loses the only power it has, of achieving public acceptance of its rulings.
When Republican-appointed justices ignore precedents they’d previously said they’d uphold, it undermines the court’s legitimacy. When Republican-appointed justices deliver overtly political speeches, it undermines the court’s legitimacy. When Republican-appointed justices take aim at fundamental American principles, such as the separation of church and state, in displays of raw power, it undermines the court’s legitimacy.
The block of partisan hacks on the SCOTUS have destroyed the legitimacy of the SCOTUS. The best way to respond to this is to GOTV and vote in so many Democrats in the House nd Senate that we can expand the court to neutralize these partisan hacks
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
