Supreme Court justices aren't pretending to respect each other
The Supreme Court’s decision Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization sent shock waves through the United States, provoking controversy and rancor that will last for years to come. In the end, the final version of the court’s opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., was quite similar to the draft leaked in May. The main changes — and the additional concurring and dissenting opinions filed by other justices — illustrate how bitterly divided the court is.
For a long time, the justices have sought to portray themselves as a collegial group who respect principled disagreements on major issues. The decision and additional opinions show how far that is from the reality.
The Supreme Court likes to portray itself as a collegial place
The court likes to project a public image of itself as a place where great minds respect each other, even when they disagree. Even though the modern court has seen more dissents, including dissents that are sometimes critical or even acerbic, many dissenting opinions explicitly express respect for the majority. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia (who had a reputation for wielding an acid pen in dissent) were politically distant from each other but spoke about their close friendship. Even as the nation grew increasingly polarized and politics more rancorous, Ginsburg promoted the court’s civility as a model and praised her newest Trump-nominated colleagues after serving with them.
In January, respected Supreme Court journalist Nina Totenberg reported that Justice Sonia Sotomayor was participating in court activities remotely because Justice Neil M. Gorsuch refused to wear a mask. The court swiftly released a joint statement from the justices denying any conflict and claiming that they were “warm colleagues and friends.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-justices-aren-t-pretending-to-respect-each-other/ar-AAYULUq
= new reply since forum marked as read
