[thinkingtoilet]

>The outcomes are decided first, and then jurisprudence is employed to substantiate them — not the other way around.

I think this is the thing people don't get. Right or left, Democrat or Republican, it just doesn't matter anymore. You have nine of the best legal minds in the country, supposedly, and they constantly vote along party lines. There is no way that happens if the law is actually being respected.

[_bin_]

This is just not true. If you examine recent terms, many cases are decided unanimously and others have judges voting across the aisle. Roberts has been incredibly cautious to avoid this happening and has managed the docket specifically to avoid it. The majority on Bostock, where Gorsuch wrote the opinion, is a pretty good example of this. A ton of rulings have been very narrowly tailored specifically to avoid setting precedent, favoring standing or juridsiction more than a tough interpretation of con law.

You might appreciate Roberts' '24 year-end report on the federal judiciary: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-en...