Another way to look at it is that the Trump-appointed justices did not vote as party line ideologues *except* on "voting rights, election laws, and campaign finance". Maybe that has something to do with why they were chosen. Maybe it says something about conservatives' priorities.
Things are pretty safe as long as the Dread Chief Justice Roberts and his motley crew of institutionalists, Barrett, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, hold the middle.
The court is political. It has been made so by the inert and hyper-politicized right-wing congress, split across two parties of like minds, and recent hyper-political White Houses.
SCOTUS is not in charge of the degree of their politicization.
You already concede that they are dividing and deciding along ideological lines.
How many ideological decisions does SCOTUS have to render before it can be considered broken?
Another way to look at it is that the Trump-appointed justices did not vote as party line ideologues *except* on "voting rights, election laws, and campaign finance". Maybe that has something to do with why they were chosen. Maybe it says something about conservatives' priorities.
Things are pretty safe as long as the Dread Chief Justice Roberts and his motley crew of institutionalists, Barrett, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, hold the middle.
The court is political. It has been made so by the inert and hyper-politicized right-wing congress, split across two parties of like minds, and recent hyper-political White Houses.
SCOTUS is not in charge of the degree of their politicization.
You already concede that they are dividing and deciding along ideological lines.
How many ideological decisions does SCOTUS have to render before it can be considered broken?
I would argue - one.
Thank you for the clarity here. The breakdown of votes along non party lines was encouraging. The Arizona voter law being an exception of course.