Can the Supreme Court Save Itself? by Linda Greenhouse

[elleng]

'Two cases threaten to reinforce its image as a political captive of the Trump administration.

I’m often asked these days whether there is anything the Supreme Court can do to extract itself from the partisan trap into which the rancid confirmation process and the court’s own behavior have driven it. It’s a hard question because, of course, individual justices have deeply held views that happen for the most part to map onto the views of the presidents who named them to their seats.

That wasn’t always the case — think Chief Justice Earl Warren, named by President Dwight Eisenhower, or Justice Harry Blackmun, appointed by President Richard Nixon. But it’s the case now, and it’s unrealistic to suppose that either the five conservative Republican-appointed justices or the four moderates named by Democrats would — or even should — put their basic beliefs about the Constitution or the interpretation of statutes on the shelf in an effort to persuade the public that the court is not just another political institution.

But the recently argued case involving young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers and the pending effort by President Trump to quash subpoenas seeking his tax information from his personal accountants suggest that there is something the court can do. These are extraordinary cases, to be sure, but they easily — even obviously — lend themselves to resolution by ordinary rules.

And that would be the point: business as usual, no matter who’s in the White House. Although President Trump and his attorney general, William Barr, have excoriated lower-court judges as agents of “the resistance,” in fact it’s the judges who have been following the rules and the administration that behaves as if the rules apply only to everyone else.'>>>

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/opinion/sunday/Supreme-Court-DACA-Trump-taxes.html?

Greenhouse may be challenging the Court to do the right thing. HOPE it works.

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Considering the GOP hasnt "won" an election since 1988, legitimately, and that they

control the court, you can expect them to do exactly what they are supposed to do after all that cheating.

[empedocles]

2. On the surface, these trump decisions appear to fall on Chief Justice Roberts.

Roberts the conservative Rehnquist successor v. Roberts haunted by the Taney ghost [Dred Scott] and the SCOTUS reputation led by Chief Justice Roberts.

[Usually conservative, Roberts drove the rw zealot scalia into a rage, in affirming Obamacare].

[SCantiGOP]

3. If there's a "Roberts Doctrine"

He believes the Court should be very hesitant to get involved in political matters.

I’m sure he sees the irony that he will be presiding over an impeachment trial.

[empedocles]

4. Could be a real test for Roberts if 'con Senator[s] go Gym j wild in a Senate trial