Linda Greenhouse’s Times column today, “Justice Alito’s Invisible Women,” brought out a slew of passionate comments.
One, in particular, by Todd, a lawyer from San Francisco, grabbed my attention, because of its central statement: “The ‘Roberts Court’ marks the end of the Supreme Court as a meaningful institution.”
I know we’ve all heard about jury nullification. Over the years of horrible Roberts Court decisions, I’ve wondered how that principle of rejection could work against the Supreme Court decisions which a majority of us find outrageous and unacceptable. I think of it as “citizens nullification.”
I’m grateful to Todd for stirring my blood with a declaration so clarion I’ve bolded it:
The decision is also an act of bad faith. There is no jurisprudential doctrine that allows these justices to ignore stare decisis and simply choose to reverse 50 years of consistent jurisprudence in this area, as if Alito and the Trump justices are so mighty and smart that they can second guess decades of justices who ruled the other way. If this was the way the court worked, no decision would last longer than the court that decided it.
The leak is meaningless to the Court’s reputation, because this act of bad faith jurisprudence has fully shredded any reputation that remained. Without exaggeration, this political fiat effectively ends stare decisis, and with it the foundation of American law. There are no more “Constitutional rights,” there are only hollow concepts waiting to be struck down by whatever bare partisans the next GOP president appoints.
The “Roberts Court” marks the end of the Supreme Court as a meaningful institution. I repudiate this decision, repudiate the justices who perjured themselves before Congress about stare decisis and the binding power of precedent, and fully repudiate this gross kangaroo court.
I’ve been a lawyer for 20 years, and as of today the form[erly] supreme court is meaningless to me, I refuse to acknowledge it has any authority, just as Alito has done with this decision.