trying to expand the rights of americans to try to restrain some of the worst parts at the time constitutional status quo of things happening in our society. if you look back before that period to the earlier in the 20th century and certainly even 19th century, what you see is a court that is consistently consistently consistently on the side of big business, of corporations, of what i call local bullies, right? segregationists. people who are operating to try to restrain the freedoms of americans, that quarters other indifferent to that or actively abetting it. and that goes back into the 19th century. so when you are looking at the court in the present, in the last 25 or 30 years. i think what we are seeing as a court, specially right now, is
of partisanship. in his scholarship. the trump years have left him standing very clearly on one side of our partisan divide. but still as always, speaking the truth. about washington institutions, including the supreme court, norm bernstein says, quote, it is not just the rulings of the roberts court is making. they created out of whole cloth a bogus, major questions doctrine. they made a mockery of standing. they write laws to fit their radical ideological preferences. they have unilaterally blown up the legitimacy of the court. wendy roberts court ruled last week on president biden s student debt relief plan, chief justice john roberts leaned on something he called the major questions doctrine. which has supreme court reporter points out, it is not really a
constitution was delivering that process. we thought that the warren court was employing the most refined level of legal scholarship possible to reach its constitutional pronouncements. and no other result was possible. my father lived in all of the supreme court and so did his children. it was religious like awe. we never talked about who appointed the justices after they were appointed because it didn t seem particularly relevant. we thought richard nixon was a truly terrible and indeed criminal president, but his appointments to the supreme court or not bad. the court survived the nixon years without any questions about its legitimacy. the court led by a chief justice, appointed by richard nixon, in a unanimous opinion ordered richard nation to hand over audiotapes that destroyed the nixon presidency and forced richard nixon to resign the presidency.
stewart and mike wanted to have a website made for their upcoming wedding, the lawsuit included a phone number for the couple which melissa grant called to discover that stewart has been married to a woman for many years and has a daughter and had no idea that his first name and phone number appeared in a case before the united states supreme court. and was used to deny other people their rights. but because the opinion had already been sent to the printer, there was nothing that the roberts court was going to do about the fraud perpetrated on the supreme court. and if the court is just making stuff up, they obviously don t care about details like the people who are activating the case in front of them actually existing. that same supreme court ruled against what it incorrectly believes is harvard college
it responds even if imperfectly to the preferences of american voters. and agency officials though not themselves elected survey presidents with the broadest of all political constituencies. but this court it is, by design as detached as possible. from the body politic that is why the court is supposed to stick to its business. to decide only cases and controversies and to stay away from making this nation s policy about subjects like student loan relief. and that means the court by deciding this case exercises authority. it does not have. it violates the constitution. justice kagan s 63 years old. she will if the country is lucky, serve another 10 to 20 years from on the supreme court. she will do so knowing she is