I feel like Sarah dodged some of the core problems people have with SCOTUS right now. It’s not just that there’s disagreement with their decisions - it’s that they are making incredibly broad decisions with massive potential to upend the nation.
Overturning Roe has created an avalanche of new cases regarding state’s rights, women’s rights, doctor’s liability, fetal viability, etc. Overturning Chevron causes massive questions about exactly who can make rules and regulations. Presidential immunity opens the door for extreme abusive of power.
Sarah dodges all this by basically saying, “yeah, but if we agreed with every ruling, that would be sorta suspect.” The current SCOTUS concerns are about major upheavals in settled law, not about disappointing partisan decisions.
I think we have to be careful when reading the stats Sarah provided. Only 5 cases were decided 6-3; as the court is aligned. What 5 cases were they though? They could be the 5 most consequential of the cases. I don’t think using stats on the decisions is the best way to see if the court is balanced.
Yep. As they say, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." And the argument that there's "no proof" of corruption in the Court is silly. This isn't just about the "court of public opinion" and whether the apparent corruption is actual corruption. There's a reason that every other governmental position, ESPECIALLY the courts, must avoid even the APPEARANCE of corruption. Even the appearance of corruption erodes the public trust. And without the public trust, especially in positions that citizens have little to no power to change, public institutions become powerless. After all, a government for and by the people is only an idea in the absence of BELIEF by the people. Finally, the assertion that the other branches can just ignore the Court is an invitation to disaster. Jackson did that and the aftermath of that, along with several other defiances of the norms of the office (and corruptions) left this country poorer in so many ways. We've come a long way - and we have so much further to go - to bring us back to that era would be a tragedy.
"Did they not expect that women's reproductive health would be put in jeopardy with a patchwork of state laws?"
Texas' abortion ban is currently in conflict with the federal law (EMTALA) that requires patients be provided care to stabilize their condition when they present at an emergency department, and the Supreme Court declined to take the case this session that would decide if federal law preempts state law. So Texas hospitals are not required to follow EMTALA when it comes to pregnancy unless the woman is already near-death or at risk for major impairment: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-biden-administration-emergency-abortions-texas-2024-10-07/
Fed employee here. I liked her commentary in general but take issue with her argument about the court and ethics. In the end the SC are federal employees, and as such, should be subject to the same rules subjected on all other federal employees. I can't be gifted a meal more than $20 but Thomas can take many expensive vacations without an ethical inquiry? It is not consistent and, as someone else says, regardless of the intent, fed employees must avoid even the appearance of unethical behavior. So should the supreme court justices.
Thank you, Sharon, for bringing another point of view to this issue! This was very interesting to read!!
When you look at the stats like she presents them, it doesn’t look as lopsided as we usually think… 🤔
On the other hand, she’s very dismissive of the “unreported gifts” that Alito and Thomas🙄🙄 she brushes it off as if those were movie theater tickets and not worth of millions of dollars with active cases in the SC… I’m not buying THAT part; there still needs to be an enforceable code of ethics! 😒😒
Agreed. I think Sarah gave a very interesting, balanced, and nuanced perspective on the Court, but a code of ethics is long past due. I understand that enforcement is a sticky wicket, but all of those Ivy educated minds in the judiciary should be able to come up with something. And this is not just partisanship (Gold Bar Bob, anyone?) I expect every justice to be Caesar’s wife, so to speak.
She was pretty fair, in my opinion. Liberal justices and their relatives have also received a lot of gifts through the years that weren’t necessarily in line with what we’d expect from impartial justices. I don’t think she’s saying it’s a nothing burger - I think she’s saying political parties are overemphasizing these gifts to suggest bribery, when there’s no proof of bribery.
I’m just pointing out Alito and Thomas because they are the most prominent 🤷🏻♀️ No SC judge (liberal or conservative) should be allowed to receive that kind of gifts; they should AT LEAST abide to the same rules that the lower justices have, period. Principle over party, every judge should follow the same rules!
Great interview! There are several good points made that I hadn't considered.
As someone who leans more democrat/liberal, my current issues with the court actually have more to do with HOW the last 3 conservative justices were appointed than my disapproval of their rulings. The Senate blocked Obama's appointment to replace Scalia for 9 months in the hopes that Trump would win the election then rushed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat less than a month before the 2020 election. True, these decisions were not made by the Court but by a partisan Senate, so I suppose the argument could be made that they had nothing to do with it. And then of course there was the entire Brett Kavanaugh- Christine Blasey Ford situation. So, when these justices are part of the majority on decisions that I disagree with for a variety of reasons, the way they were appointed matters. Add in all of the borderline unethical issues with the other two conservative justices, in particular related to January 6th and extravagant gifts, and a large portion of the population starts to have serious doubts about the legitimacy of an entire branch of government, which is never good.
In addition to the appointments you mentioned, there was the whole Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill issue, too. From Thomas' hearing came all kinds of new rules and laws about sexual harassment in the workplace. If you've ever taken a sexual harassment training at work, you can thank Anita Hill for it as a direct result of her testimony during Thomas' Senate hearing. Yet they appointed him anyway.
An interesting read, but I have at least 2 problems with her points. First, re: gender-affirming care, she explains that many states have laws preventing minors from getting tattoos or piercings. Yes, BUT they can get them with parental permission. (At least here in Texas.) If I understand correctly, the gender-affirming care decision will be either they can or they can't, regardless of whether their parents agree or not. As with abortion, there's a real possibilty of removing personal healthcare decisions from the hands of those involved: patients, parents, and their medical providers. It's not OK! Second, she says there's no evidence of bribery related to the massive unreported vacations and gifts certain judges (on both sides) have received. I DON'T CARE! It's not about whether or not they were bribed. SCOTUS justices are supposed to be above reproach. When they accept huge gifts and fail to report them, they are leaving the perception that there could be bribes. As Sarah herself says later, in answer to a different question, "So if the Court becomes too unpopular, the political branches may one day just decide to ignore the Court's ruling. And once that happens, we're never going back. That will be the end of the rule of law in America. And without the rule of law, I'm not even sure what would be left of our system of government." The perception of the potential for bribery is one of the major reasons the Court has become unpopular. Her own point explains why it MUST be fixed.
Wow, this was excellent! “Too many people want our government to react quickly when in fact it was made to prevent quick changes by transient majorities or mobs. It's frustrating but it's also how we reach compromise and lasting solutions to thorny problems in a pluralistic society.” 👌🏼👏🏼
Been a follower of both Sharon and Sarah at the Dispatch for a while but this exceeded expectations. I love Sarah’s long-term vision for the Supreme Court. I need to have her perspective, to see beyond the current beefs and look at the big picture. Things definitely sound better than I thought!
Agreed. It can be hard to deal with decisions we don’t like at first. But often, in the law, you need to take a couple steps back and look at the long view. History is important.
It’s so true - both sides want you to “hear” their narrative but when presented in the way Sarah just stated, the lopsided-ness seems to be more “balanced”. Take away the polarity and what’s really present?? 🤔 enjoyed this one!
I would love to hear her thoughts on the presidential immunity decision specifically because that terrifies me and seems like it will head to disintegration of the rule of law quite quickly if anyone should take the office of the president and take advantage of how difficult it is to prosecute them.
Listen to the Advisory Opinions podcast! Sarah and her “guest/co-host” discussed the opinion in an episode. They cover most of the Supreme Court’s decisions and is extremely informative
I'm listening to the presidential immunity episode of Sarah's podcast now, and it is very annoying to me that in the episode, Sarah absolutely concedes that the SCOTUS decision is problematic in its absolute immunity ruling. So why can't she admit the same in the above text with Sharon? It feels more like she's hedging in order to preserve some kind of "both sides" "nonpartisan" narrative in defense of SCOTUS. It's not at all helpful to her argument.
"beware of popular Supreme Court decisions! And take a moment to ask whether a decision you disagree with might actually be protecting some right you haven't totally thought about.". This! I am naturally a 'examine from all sides' kind of person. (My hubby calls it argumentative 😂) I try to examine all sides before I dig my heels in. I understand there are nuances and information I don't have. I look for answers. I have found that the popular route is often the knee-jerk reaction. And that many people I have encountered than follow that knee-jerk reaction with stubbornness or pride and don't follow through with real research or even questions that maybe the thing doesn't benefit YOU but benefits the greater good. We ALL live on this planet together.
Whoa! Yes, Sarah Isgur is partly correct, the public doesn't like key SCOTUS decisions and that does play a part in wanting to reform the Court. However, it is just a small part. Those who follow the Court know that the highly partisan Republican politicians in robes have in short order reversed long settled decisions and have tried in short order to utterly remake America. Look at just some of the key decisions: "Citizens United" unleashing unlimited corporate dark money into political campaigns; the "Dodds" decision reversing not just Roe v Wade but ruling that we citizens have no constitutional right to privacy, "Heller" and "Bruen" holding that there is a broad almost unlimited right to keep and bear arms; the Shelby County decision overturning key parts of the Voting Rights Act, the "Trump v USA" decision making the president a King by granting the president absolute immunity when exercising "core" functions, the Loper Bright reversal of the longstanding Chevron doctrine, the creation of the "major question doctrine" which is a strange rule of interpretation that Congress did not mean what it said if it grants agencies the authority to tackle major economic problems., the unfathomable decisions on permitting bribery and "gratuities" to public officials. All of that took place while the Court has been operating an ethical and moral cesspool -- ignoring blatant conflicts of interest, taking what appears to be the moral equivalent of bribes and gratuities. Isgur's secondary response is that no one has come up with a viable solution to enforcing these moral and ethical lapses by the Court. Well that isn't true. First, there are term limits. Secondly, there are the criminal laws and the possibility of criminal prosecution and incarceration. Thomas's and Alito's failure to report the gifts they received on the reports they are required by law to file is a violation of 18 USC Sec 1001. Unless Supreme Court Justices also declare that they have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution a lot of the ethical problems of the Justices could be addressed by making a code of conduct mandatory and violation a crime with mandatory incarceration upon a finding of guilt. The failure to address the wave of corrupt conduct by the Justices has deprived the Court of legitimacy. See Gertner-Vladek's op ed in the NYT today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/opinion/supreme-court-legitimacy.html?smid=em-share
Not sure I agree with Sarah's interpretation of the Court's rightness, based on the distribution of yeas and nays between conservative and liberal members. Remember: What's fair is not always right. What's right is not always fair. Statistically, yes, you could argue that the Court appears to be acting both rightly and fairly. However, if we based individual cases/decisions on a scale of consequence--I think we'd see that several of the most consequential (depth and breadth) were neither right, nor fair. In fact, many are outright dangerous.
It's so important to put things into perspective and get a viewpoint that's not designed simply to get clicks (i.e. all the headlines about these cases). HOWEVER, as others are bringing up, she is glossing over some things that deserve a more nuanced conversation.
- For example, there might not be evidence of outright bribery, but when Justices accept undisclosed gifts valued at high dollar amounts, and then rule in favor of the gift givers interests, it definitely creates the appearance of bribery. The solution doesn't have to be all or nothing, or a complicated system of enforcement. We are big-brained beings with the ability to weigh the options.
Sadly data points such as "Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal justice in the majority" glosses over exactly which of the other 10 percent were cases with a far-reaching effect on large numbers of Americans while how many of the 90% were of the type that only addresses some minutia in a specific law or past legal ruling with almost no effect on most American's basic rights and freedoms. This court has not shown any respect for, and in some cases clear distain for previous SCOTUS rulings. Just look at how undoing elements of the Voting Rights Act have left so many of us wondering how to figure out voting in the many different and often bizarre laws recently enacted that are obviously states' attempts to keep some people and groups from exercising their right to have their votes accepted and counted.
It's interesting that she makes the point both sides are mad at the current court but doesn't give examples. Liberals are upset about many things, including Dobbs. What decisions are conservatives mad about? It's also worth noting that when conservatives don't like a decision, they sometimes use organizations that helped write Project 2025 to bring the issue to the court in another way.
She also claims (without evidence) that the court wants a code of ethics - how do we know that? They developed one only after a lot of public pressure, and Roberts declined to testify before Congress. They appear very much to NOT want oversight.
I appreciate her perspective that every SC case affects someone, and it makes it that much harder to understand when they deny a stay of execution for someone who may well be innocent. It seems that not all of the justices are as cognizant of that as Sarah is.
I think one thing Sarah didn't mention, but was discussed by Steve Vladick ia the fact the justices CHOOSE what cases they are tsking up. She can guve the stats, and even made mention they are taking up less cases. But...those cases they are taking on... And when taking on cases yet giving no options. It makes me scratch my head that they are taking on less, giving less oopinions, yet causing so much more divide.
I feel like Sarah dodged some of the core problems people have with SCOTUS right now. It’s not just that there’s disagreement with their decisions - it’s that they are making incredibly broad decisions with massive potential to upend the nation.
Overturning Roe has created an avalanche of new cases regarding state’s rights, women’s rights, doctor’s liability, fetal viability, etc. Overturning Chevron causes massive questions about exactly who can make rules and regulations. Presidential immunity opens the door for extreme abusive of power.
Sarah dodges all this by basically saying, “yeah, but if we agreed with every ruling, that would be sorta suspect.” The current SCOTUS concerns are about major upheavals in settled law, not about disappointing partisan decisions.
Thank you for so clearly stating my jumbled thoughts that are in complete agreement with you!
I think we have to be careful when reading the stats Sarah provided. Only 5 cases were decided 6-3; as the court is aligned. What 5 cases were they though? They could be the 5 most consequential of the cases. I don’t think using stats on the decisions is the best way to see if the court is balanced.
Yep. As they say, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." And the argument that there's "no proof" of corruption in the Court is silly. This isn't just about the "court of public opinion" and whether the apparent corruption is actual corruption. There's a reason that every other governmental position, ESPECIALLY the courts, must avoid even the APPEARANCE of corruption. Even the appearance of corruption erodes the public trust. And without the public trust, especially in positions that citizens have little to no power to change, public institutions become powerless. After all, a government for and by the people is only an idea in the absence of BELIEF by the people. Finally, the assertion that the other branches can just ignore the Court is an invitation to disaster. Jackson did that and the aftermath of that, along with several other defiances of the norms of the office (and corruptions) left this country poorer in so many ways. We've come a long way - and we have so much further to go - to bring us back to that era would be a tragedy.
I agree. Two of the cases have huge consequences because of their decision, Chevron and Dobbs.
Did they not expect that women's reproductive health would be put in jeopardy with a patchwork of state laws?
Do they not know what an unscrupulous president will do with immunity in "official acts"?
"Did they not expect that women's reproductive health would be put in jeopardy with a patchwork of state laws?"
Texas' abortion ban is currently in conflict with the federal law (EMTALA) that requires patients be provided care to stabilize their condition when they present at an emergency department, and the Supreme Court declined to take the case this session that would decide if federal law preempts state law. So Texas hospitals are not required to follow EMTALA when it comes to pregnancy unless the woman is already near-death or at risk for major impairment: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rebuffs-biden-administration-emergency-abortions-texas-2024-10-07/
How is this not so clearly a form of gender discrimination?
This was a despicable move made by the Supreme Court.
Are you proof of what she was referring to regarding not liking decisions when your favorite party is not in the majority on the SCOTUS?
Fed employee here. I liked her commentary in general but take issue with her argument about the court and ethics. In the end the SC are federal employees, and as such, should be subject to the same rules subjected on all other federal employees. I can't be gifted a meal more than $20 but Thomas can take many expensive vacations without an ethical inquiry? It is not consistent and, as someone else says, regardless of the intent, fed employees must avoid even the appearance of unethical behavior. So should the supreme court justices.
Thank you, Sharon, for bringing another point of view to this issue! This was very interesting to read!!
When you look at the stats like she presents them, it doesn’t look as lopsided as we usually think… 🤔
On the other hand, she’s very dismissive of the “unreported gifts” that Alito and Thomas🙄🙄 she brushes it off as if those were movie theater tickets and not worth of millions of dollars with active cases in the SC… I’m not buying THAT part; there still needs to be an enforceable code of ethics! 😒😒
Agreed. I think Sarah gave a very interesting, balanced, and nuanced perspective on the Court, but a code of ethics is long past due. I understand that enforcement is a sticky wicket, but all of those Ivy educated minds in the judiciary should be able to come up with something. And this is not just partisanship (Gold Bar Bob, anyone?) I expect every justice to be Caesar’s wife, so to speak.
She was pretty fair, in my opinion. Liberal justices and their relatives have also received a lot of gifts through the years that weren’t necessarily in line with what we’d expect from impartial justices. I don’t think she’s saying it’s a nothing burger - I think she’s saying political parties are overemphasizing these gifts to suggest bribery, when there’s no proof of bribery.
I’m just pointing out Alito and Thomas because they are the most prominent 🤷🏻♀️ No SC judge (liberal or conservative) should be allowed to receive that kind of gifts; they should AT LEAST abide to the same rules that the lower justices have, period. Principle over party, every judge should follow the same rules!
Great interview! There are several good points made that I hadn't considered.
As someone who leans more democrat/liberal, my current issues with the court actually have more to do with HOW the last 3 conservative justices were appointed than my disapproval of their rulings. The Senate blocked Obama's appointment to replace Scalia for 9 months in the hopes that Trump would win the election then rushed to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat less than a month before the 2020 election. True, these decisions were not made by the Court but by a partisan Senate, so I suppose the argument could be made that they had nothing to do with it. And then of course there was the entire Brett Kavanaugh- Christine Blasey Ford situation. So, when these justices are part of the majority on decisions that I disagree with for a variety of reasons, the way they were appointed matters. Add in all of the borderline unethical issues with the other two conservative justices, in particular related to January 6th and extravagant gifts, and a large portion of the population starts to have serious doubts about the legitimacy of an entire branch of government, which is never good.
In addition to the appointments you mentioned, there was the whole Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill issue, too. From Thomas' hearing came all kinds of new rules and laws about sexual harassment in the workplace. If you've ever taken a sexual harassment training at work, you can thank Anita Hill for it as a direct result of her testimony during Thomas' Senate hearing. Yet they appointed him anyway.
An interesting read, but I have at least 2 problems with her points. First, re: gender-affirming care, she explains that many states have laws preventing minors from getting tattoos or piercings. Yes, BUT they can get them with parental permission. (At least here in Texas.) If I understand correctly, the gender-affirming care decision will be either they can or they can't, regardless of whether their parents agree or not. As with abortion, there's a real possibilty of removing personal healthcare decisions from the hands of those involved: patients, parents, and their medical providers. It's not OK! Second, she says there's no evidence of bribery related to the massive unreported vacations and gifts certain judges (on both sides) have received. I DON'T CARE! It's not about whether or not they were bribed. SCOTUS justices are supposed to be above reproach. When they accept huge gifts and fail to report them, they are leaving the perception that there could be bribes. As Sarah herself says later, in answer to a different question, "So if the Court becomes too unpopular, the political branches may one day just decide to ignore the Court's ruling. And once that happens, we're never going back. That will be the end of the rule of law in America. And without the rule of law, I'm not even sure what would be left of our system of government." The perception of the potential for bribery is one of the major reasons the Court has become unpopular. Her own point explains why it MUST be fixed.
Wow, this was excellent! “Too many people want our government to react quickly when in fact it was made to prevent quick changes by transient majorities or mobs. It's frustrating but it's also how we reach compromise and lasting solutions to thorny problems in a pluralistic society.” 👌🏼👏🏼
Been a follower of both Sharon and Sarah at the Dispatch for a while but this exceeded expectations. I love Sarah’s long-term vision for the Supreme Court. I need to have her perspective, to see beyond the current beefs and look at the big picture. Things definitely sound better than I thought!
Agreed. It can be hard to deal with decisions we don’t like at first. But often, in the law, you need to take a couple steps back and look at the long view. History is important.
It’s so true - both sides want you to “hear” their narrative but when presented in the way Sarah just stated, the lopsided-ness seems to be more “balanced”. Take away the polarity and what’s really present?? 🤔 enjoyed this one!
I would love to hear her thoughts on the presidential immunity decision specifically because that terrifies me and seems like it will head to disintegration of the rule of law quite quickly if anyone should take the office of the president and take advantage of how difficult it is to prosecute them.
Listen to the Advisory Opinions podcast! Sarah and her “guest/co-host” discussed the opinion in an episode. They cover most of the Supreme Court’s decisions and is extremely informative
I'm listening to the presidential immunity episode of Sarah's podcast now, and it is very annoying to me that in the episode, Sarah absolutely concedes that the SCOTUS decision is problematic in its absolute immunity ruling. So why can't she admit the same in the above text with Sharon? It feels more like she's hedging in order to preserve some kind of "both sides" "nonpartisan" narrative in defense of SCOTUS. It's not at all helpful to her argument.
I second this! It’s one of my favorite podcasts.
Thanks for the recommendation!
"beware of popular Supreme Court decisions! And take a moment to ask whether a decision you disagree with might actually be protecting some right you haven't totally thought about.". This! I am naturally a 'examine from all sides' kind of person. (My hubby calls it argumentative 😂) I try to examine all sides before I dig my heels in. I understand there are nuances and information I don't have. I look for answers. I have found that the popular route is often the knee-jerk reaction. And that many people I have encountered than follow that knee-jerk reaction with stubbornness or pride and don't follow through with real research or even questions that maybe the thing doesn't benefit YOU but benefits the greater good. We ALL live on this planet together.
Well said!
Whoa! Yes, Sarah Isgur is partly correct, the public doesn't like key SCOTUS decisions and that does play a part in wanting to reform the Court. However, it is just a small part. Those who follow the Court know that the highly partisan Republican politicians in robes have in short order reversed long settled decisions and have tried in short order to utterly remake America. Look at just some of the key decisions: "Citizens United" unleashing unlimited corporate dark money into political campaigns; the "Dodds" decision reversing not just Roe v Wade but ruling that we citizens have no constitutional right to privacy, "Heller" and "Bruen" holding that there is a broad almost unlimited right to keep and bear arms; the Shelby County decision overturning key parts of the Voting Rights Act, the "Trump v USA" decision making the president a King by granting the president absolute immunity when exercising "core" functions, the Loper Bright reversal of the longstanding Chevron doctrine, the creation of the "major question doctrine" which is a strange rule of interpretation that Congress did not mean what it said if it grants agencies the authority to tackle major economic problems., the unfathomable decisions on permitting bribery and "gratuities" to public officials. All of that took place while the Court has been operating an ethical and moral cesspool -- ignoring blatant conflicts of interest, taking what appears to be the moral equivalent of bribes and gratuities. Isgur's secondary response is that no one has come up with a viable solution to enforcing these moral and ethical lapses by the Court. Well that isn't true. First, there are term limits. Secondly, there are the criminal laws and the possibility of criminal prosecution and incarceration. Thomas's and Alito's failure to report the gifts they received on the reports they are required by law to file is a violation of 18 USC Sec 1001. Unless Supreme Court Justices also declare that they have "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution a lot of the ethical problems of the Justices could be addressed by making a code of conduct mandatory and violation a crime with mandatory incarceration upon a finding of guilt. The failure to address the wave of corrupt conduct by the Justices has deprived the Court of legitimacy. See Gertner-Vladek's op ed in the NYT today: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/opinion/supreme-court-legitimacy.html?smid=em-share
Not sure I agree with Sarah's interpretation of the Court's rightness, based on the distribution of yeas and nays between conservative and liberal members. Remember: What's fair is not always right. What's right is not always fair. Statistically, yes, you could argue that the Court appears to be acting both rightly and fairly. However, if we based individual cases/decisions on a scale of consequence--I think we'd see that several of the most consequential (depth and breadth) were neither right, nor fair. In fact, many are outright dangerous.
It's so important to put things into perspective and get a viewpoint that's not designed simply to get clicks (i.e. all the headlines about these cases). HOWEVER, as others are bringing up, she is glossing over some things that deserve a more nuanced conversation.
- For example, there might not be evidence of outright bribery, but when Justices accept undisclosed gifts valued at high dollar amounts, and then rule in favor of the gift givers interests, it definitely creates the appearance of bribery. The solution doesn't have to be all or nothing, or a complicated system of enforcement. We are big-brained beings with the ability to weigh the options.
Sadly data points such as "Ninety percent of the 57 cases were decided with at least one liberal justice in the majority" glosses over exactly which of the other 10 percent were cases with a far-reaching effect on large numbers of Americans while how many of the 90% were of the type that only addresses some minutia in a specific law or past legal ruling with almost no effect on most American's basic rights and freedoms. This court has not shown any respect for, and in some cases clear distain for previous SCOTUS rulings. Just look at how undoing elements of the Voting Rights Act have left so many of us wondering how to figure out voting in the many different and often bizarre laws recently enacted that are obviously states' attempts to keep some people and groups from exercising their right to have their votes accepted and counted.
It's interesting that she makes the point both sides are mad at the current court but doesn't give examples. Liberals are upset about many things, including Dobbs. What decisions are conservatives mad about? It's also worth noting that when conservatives don't like a decision, they sometimes use organizations that helped write Project 2025 to bring the issue to the court in another way.
She also claims (without evidence) that the court wants a code of ethics - how do we know that? They developed one only after a lot of public pressure, and Roberts declined to testify before Congress. They appear very much to NOT want oversight.
I appreciate her perspective that every SC case affects someone, and it makes it that much harder to understand when they deny a stay of execution for someone who may well be innocent. It seems that not all of the justices are as cognizant of that as Sarah is.
I think one thing Sarah didn't mention, but was discussed by Steve Vladick ia the fact the justices CHOOSE what cases they are tsking up. She can guve the stats, and even made mention they are taking up less cases. But...those cases they are taking on... And when taking on cases yet giving no options. It makes me scratch my head that they are taking on less, giving less oopinions, yet causing so much more divide.