There is actually a whole podcast called 5-4 that goes over how illogical and partisan the court is and always has been. Every episode is a specific case. They go over the actual arguments and show why they don't work. You can educate yourself there.
Also, you're pointing out that the rulings are consistent with the views of the judges. This is missing the point because what if you have set A of judges with views X and set B of judges with views Y afterwards and they overturn or gut A's rulings? It's an admission of partisanship and outcome bias, which the supreme Court is not supposed to have. The problem isnt that an individual judge is inconsistent, it's that different sets of judges are inconsistent. It be like if when a company changes it's board they go from car company, to gamedev, to crypto, to defense, etc. How would that be a desirable result?
Hacker Cinema
1 comment on Hacker News
There is actually a whole podcast called 5-4 that goes over how illogical and partisan the court is and always has been. Every episode is a specific case. They go over the actual arguments and show why they don't work. You can educate yourself there.
Also, you're pointing out that the rulings are consistent with the views of the judges. This is missing the point because what if you have set A of judges with views X and set B of judges with views Y afterwards and they overturn or gut A's rulings? It's an admission of partisanship and outcome bias, which the supreme Court is not supposed to have. The problem isnt that an individual judge is inconsistent, it's that different sets of judges are inconsistent. It be like if when a company changes it's board they go from car company, to gamedev, to crypto, to defense, etc. How would that be a desirable result?