The 'No Dinner Parties' explanation for recent US Supreme Court decisions:

[Tomconroy]

Link to tweet

I actually suspect there is something to this.

[Johnny2X2X]

1. Yeah yeah

They're about to hand out some extreme right winged decisions and all this talk that they've softened will be forgotten.

[Elessar Zappa]

6. Yes but Barret, Kavanaugh, and Roberts

aren’t as consistently crazy as the other 3 fascists. I’ll take what we can get from them.

[Johnny2X2X]

7. They're going to throw out affirmative action this week

Sure, they have surprised on several rulings, but they are still extremists.

[Elessar Zappa]

9. We agree.

I wish we could expand the Court.

[Artcatt]

14. Not *as* crazy. This is where we are.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. OMG They're swayed by peer and public opinion? Not the Law Gods they always told us about?

They can find middle ground when they decide to look for it? So what prompted all the radical right rulings?

[stopdiggin]

4. a heady rush of power?

A 6-3 majority - and Alito unleashed. Picture a drunken frat house party at 2:30am ... But the morning - does eventually roll around again.

[rurallib]

3. I had a theory that 4 of the 6 RW votes have been going out of their way

to distance themselves of the stink of Thomas' bribery or be perceived that they hav been bought.
Especially Roberts whose tenure as Chief has been exceptionally political.

Certainly Thomas and Alito don't care.

[stopdiggin]

5. it's been said before (and to a certain extent

demonstrated by history) that the 'legitimacy' of the court resides to some degree in public opinion. And - much as some on the court bridle and would like to throw off that yoke - the rational players recognize there is essential truth there.

[FakeNoose]

8. Richard Painter is commenting on the NYT story on yesterday's Scotus ruling

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal theory that would have radically reshaped how federal elections are conducted by giving state legislatures largely unchecked power to set rules for federal elections and to draw congressional maps warped by partisan gerrymandering.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing the majority opinion. The Constitution, he said, “does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The decision followed other important rulings this term in which the court’s three liberal members were in the majority, including ones on the Voting Rights Act, immigration and tribal rights. Though some of the biggest cases are still to come, probably arriving by the end of the week, the court has so far repeatedly repudiated aggressive arguments from conservative litigants.

The case concerned the “independent state legislature” theory. It is based on a reading of the Constitution’s Elections Clause, which says, “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”

So ... Dobbs wasn't really a part of this issue at all. The Alt-right Scotus justices were and are being treated like lepers in DC society because they are - moral - lepers. Dobbs is still operative, until further notice.

[spanone]

10. The scary part is the court even considered ruling on it.

[Midnight Writer]

11. This is part of the influence plan by Leonard Leo.

Introduce Justices to very wealthy patrons, give them a taste of the good life, wow them with extravagance, flatter them, and make it clear that all this prestige and luxury goes away if they stray from the script.

[MOMFUDSKI]

12. Hoping

they are running a little scared. Seems to be the case. Pardon the pun

[Zeitghost]

13. There is little to nothing to it

For one, if you follow the justices and their judicial philosophies, almost every decision is fairly consistent.

You also have to remember that the partisan bickering and grandstanding is theater for the voters. For the most part they are all buddies behind closed doors. Scalia and Ginsburg were close friends and vacationed together while their ardent supporters and fans hated each other. Also look at how fast all 9 justices jumped to issue a statement criticizing calls to impose standards and oversight of the court. They are all institutionalists to some degree or another.

[brooklynite]

15. Argument fails

The Court DECISION occurred after the reports about Thomas and Alito came out, but the VOTE on the case came months ago.

[Tomconroy]

16. Read the tweet again please

[brooklynite]

17. I did; said nothing about the point that the SC vote was before the unpleasantness with Thomas.

Moore v Harper was argued back in December. The vote would have been held shortly after. The intervening months when revelations about Thomas and Alito came out was simply to allow for the writing of the decision.

[Tomconroy]

18. Dobbs