The erosion of Rule of Law stems from multiple similarities between Roberts Court and Justice Tenney’s Court in Dred v. Scott . The dimensions include social backgrounds with imbued biases, misplace self assurance entertaining new and unproven concepts and distinctions, hubris reinterpreting settled concepts, unrealistic expectations about resultant societal restructuring, and cherry picking from history ignoring context. For example:
Alito thinks no one notices illusory distinctions and reverse religious and denominational prejudices.
Gorsuch fails to see that while he validates his mother whenever he says “of course” he not only defines himself but chooses for all men without regard to real life and experience.
Thomas that he was not prepared for legal practice after learning policy and theory at Yale. His anti DEI crusade stems from the simple fact that he chose a law school which did not matched his needs and expectations – not a failure of DEI.
Roberts entrusted the Rule of Law and a thousand years of thought, reflection, and experience to a temporal and unchecked Executive. Blinded, inter alia, by the lure of untested Unified Executive theory – and his own social class biases – he failed to appreciate the power he vested in unprincipled actors like Trump and the MAGA. The foundation of his trust was an amorphous “presumption” without backing by the power he gave up.
One can not reset history with the tautological thinking which original intent and textualism are based on. The drafters of the Declaration succinctly stated the problem with concentration of power and application of outmoded rules.
There is little difference between this majority and the Tenney Court; one has gone down in infamy and this one is merely waiting for historians to write its epitaph.