[ETH_start]

Being "extremely conservative" in their rulings has no relevance to the likelihood of them being politically motivated. It's entirely possible that the Constitution itself is "extremely conservative", given the well known commitment of the framers of the Constitution to limiting the power of the federal government through Constitutional restraints, and the 130 years of judicial history during which the SCOTUS consistently ruled the way the current SCOTUS is ruling on cases.

[consteval]

> Being "extremely conservative" in their rulings has no relevance to the likelihood of them being politically motivated

> It's entirely possible that the Constitution itself is "extremely conservative"

No, because they aren't actually textualists. Only when it can be used to propagate a republican agenda. Then, suddenly, they're not textualists otherwise.

I'm saying their lack of consistency in constitutional interpretation, combined with their extreme consistency with ruling that help current republican and conservatives' agendas, demonstrates they are politically motivated.

You would have to be both blind and deaf to legitimately believe this court is interpreting the constitution in good faith. Expanding the powers of the president to such an unprecedented and downright monarchic degree? Really? Let's not play stupid.

[ETH_start]

>No, because they aren't actually textualists. Only when it can be used to propagate a republican agenda. Then, suddenly, they're not textualists otherwise.

Throwing out accusations of judicial corruption without evidence is reckless and, frankly, undermines the integrity of any meaningful critique you may hope to offer. These are not trivial charges; alleging that the highest court is driven by pure partisanship demands a comprehensive in-depth analysis to back it up. To fling out these accusations without doing that is irresponsible. It reeks of partisan hackery.

If you want to be taken seriously on a subject as critical as judicial bias, then do the work and come prepared with more than superficial evidence.

[consteval]

If you're arguing that the judiciary happens to perfectly align with republican politics by sheer coincidence, then I think you're stupid.

The reality is there is zero evidence for this, because the right is not stupid. Of course, whatever they find can be supported by the constitution in some way.

But when abortion, gay marriage, interracial marriage, presidential immunity, and more are on the table and so perfectly align with what the right desires, it should be obvious.

It also doesn't help that Trump has outright admitted to this multiple times. Unfortunately, he has a big mouth. He is very clear about his intention to use the court to further propagate an increasingly extreme republican agenda. When the department of education is disbanded and everyone must take conservative exams to work in government, perhaps your opinions will change.

As time goes on, the republicans veer dangerously close to fascism. The legitimacy of this government is not their concern - winning is. If that includes coups, military force, and illegitimate courts, then so be it from their perspective.

I mean, the only reason Trump can even run right now is because his court granted him complete immunity. When he is president, it would be trivial for his to employ the military on this country. Not to mention, perfectly legal.

[ETH_start]

Yes, it's entirely possible that one party believes in the Constitution and another one does not. I don't see why you're ruling that out as a possibility. Moreover, I haven't seen evidence that the Supreme Court aligns perfectly with the Republican Party's platform. The person who needs to bring evidence here is the one who's claiming that the rulings of the Supreme Court are not supported by the Constitution, and that the Constitution is some vague document that you can find justification for any position in. That's basically saying there is no Constitution, and that the Court is corrupt. And if you're going to make those claims, the onus is on you to provide evidence, which you have not done.