The new term opens without any of the blockbuster cases that have characterized recent sessions, but with the shadow of the election looming large over the Court's docket—and its future
Trump is leading not an election campaign, but an insurrectionary movement. The court was “supremely” aware of this when it followed the most corrupt and undemocratic president in well more than a century, with a ruling giving future presidents full immunity for official acts and all the rest. I would love to believe that this court will suddenly see the light (of democracy) and reverse course. But even you have not been able to find an iota of evidence that it will. If Trump doesn’t win through votes, this court’s reactionary majority is there to ensure that he can win “by hook or by crook.”
The Supreme Court showed its true colors last term. The election is a test to see if its illegitimacy will have even a smidgen of pushback or it will be aided and abetted even more.
If President Harris attempts to implement her policy agenda via "a pen and a phone", then she risks the court thwarting her and rightly so. If, however, her agenda is legislated by Congress, it is likely to receive this court's blessing.
What "legislated by Congress" means has regularly been a matter of significant debate regarding President Biden's policies. If President Harris by "pen and a phone" acts by applying current law, the Court thwarting her very well might be wrong.
As to the second part, it depends on what this agenda entails.
"On Liberty" (John Stuart Mill) and "Democracy in America" (Alexis de Tocqueville) repeatedly accentuated the dangers of a “tyranny of the majority.” The SCOTUS majority gives that expression new currency and new urgency. Their conduct (including pretending to have the power to grant immunity to Trump and other presidents when they knowingly undermine our Constitution to change the outcome of a presidential election) is strikingly at odds with the many assertions by nearly all such justices that the people are sovereign. See, e.g., SCOTUS Justices' Own Words Prove Extreme Deceit (and Irrelevance) of Trump Immunity Decision (Part I) https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/scotus-justices-own-words-prove-extreme?r=30ufvh
You questioned whether or not the SC could give "at least some sensitivity on the part of a majority of the justices to the erosion of public faith in the Court—and its consequences?" I think Alito, Roberts and Thomas have made it abundantly clear that they don't care about the public faith or about any real ethicals standards. Not a good sign.
Trump is leading not an election campaign, but an insurrectionary movement. The court was “supremely” aware of this when it followed the most corrupt and undemocratic president in well more than a century, with a ruling giving future presidents full immunity for official acts and all the rest. I would love to believe that this court will suddenly see the light (of democracy) and reverse course. But even you have not been able to find an iota of evidence that it will. If Trump doesn’t win through votes, this court’s reactionary majority is there to ensure that he can win “by hook or by crook.”
The Supreme Court showed its true colors last term. The election is a test to see if its illegitimacy will have even a smidgen of pushback or it will be aided and abetted even more.
If President Harris attempts to implement her policy agenda via "a pen and a phone", then she risks the court thwarting her and rightly so. If, however, her agenda is legislated by Congress, it is likely to receive this court's blessing.
What "legislated by Congress" means has regularly been a matter of significant debate regarding President Biden's policies. If President Harris by "pen and a phone" acts by applying current law, the Court thwarting her very well might be wrong.
As to the second part, it depends on what this agenda entails.
Why would it be wrong for Harris to implement her policy via executive action if Congress isn’t willing to play ball?
"On Liberty" (John Stuart Mill) and "Democracy in America" (Alexis de Tocqueville) repeatedly accentuated the dangers of a “tyranny of the majority.” The SCOTUS majority gives that expression new currency and new urgency. Their conduct (including pretending to have the power to grant immunity to Trump and other presidents when they knowingly undermine our Constitution to change the outcome of a presidential election) is strikingly at odds with the many assertions by nearly all such justices that the people are sovereign. See, e.g., SCOTUS Justices' Own Words Prove Extreme Deceit (and Irrelevance) of Trump Immunity Decision (Part I) https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/scotus-justices-own-words-prove-extreme?r=30ufvh
SCOTUS Justices' Own Words Prove Extreme Deceit (and Irrelevance) of Trump Immunity Decision (Part II) https://blackcollarcrime.substack.com/p/scotus-justices-own-words-prove-extreme-b67?r=30ufvh
You questioned whether or not the SC could give "at least some sensitivity on the part of a majority of the justices to the erosion of public faith in the Court—and its consequences?" I think Alito, Roberts and Thomas have made it abundantly clear that they don't care about the public faith or about any real ethicals standards. Not a good sign.