Fascism is, as fascism does.
This is the same institution that gave us Bush v. Gore. That in turn gave us a president who spent his first 9 months under reacting to the threat of terrorism, which allowed 9/11 to happpen. He then lied the nation into an unnecessary war that made Iraq a client state of Iran, unleashed Isis, destabilized the Middle East, lead to millions of refugees fleeing into Europe, destabilizing Europe. The combined affect of his policies was to shift over $12 trillion (over a ten year period) of societies assets from the 99% (demand side) to the 1% (supply side). The impact of this move was covered by cheap & ez credit, but when that ran out the U.S. economy cratered, pushing global civilization on to the abyss, that still has not lost its gravity.
The Supreme Court gave us this dystopic world with their decision in Bush v. Gore, and they have never apologized for that decision.
Clearly the nation got the 2000 election correct and the Supreme Court got it wrong - by a vast chasm of a margin.
It is my contention that justices have a strong preference to vote their party line vote, but generally speaking, when they do deviate from that, it is to protect the institution of the Court itself, its perceived legitimacy and moral authority, its roll in society.
(That is, by the way, what I would argue, what happened in Marbury vs Madison, Marshall would have liked to find for Marbury, but couldnât so he chose to strengthen the institution instead, granting the court with the power of judicial review in the process which vastly strengthened it - but as Breyer said, maybe that decision was wrong and should be overturned which would neuter the court, certainly the constitution never explicitly grants the court the power of judicial review, they simply gave it to themselves in Marbury)
The only current conservative judge who has acted accordingly is the Chief Justice himself, Roberts. At times he appears to be moved by the issue of protecting the court as an institution - I think that explains his deviations from conservative doctrine, (his own explanations arent that good, in my mind).
I think one of the arguments for this has to include that overturning precedent on this would vastly undermine the courts perceived legitimacy and moral authority with hundreds of millions of Americans who still resent the chaos the court caused with its Bush v. Gore decision to overthrow the publics preference.
The only justice that this might resonate with is Justice Roberts.
Personally, I think the labor movement died when the government defanged the mob in the 1960s. All it usually took was a brick through the living room window to shift a conservatives (CEO or politician) thinking on what âfairnessâ and âjusticeâ means. By defanging the mob (Robert Kennedy as Attorney General, the RICO statutes, etcâŚ) labor lost its ability to hit back. I know, itâs violence. But as Gandhi once said, poverty is a kind of violence, the worst kind. And apparently American conservative elites have no compunction against serving their fellow, ordinary Americans violence of the worst kind as a regular and steady diet as long as they themselves are immune from any violent act in return.