If You Want To Read About The SCOTUS Decisions ...

I’ve repeatedly stated my agreement with Jonathan Turley that, slowly but surely—because that’s the way our judicial system operates—the legal agenda of Trump 2.0 would win out for the most part. Whatever anyone says about CJ Roberts, it was never in the cards that he would cut his jurisprudential philosophy to spite Trump. Roberts’ approach is frustrating at times but—not always but usually—it tends toward the originalist and federalist vision. The end of term decisions by the SCOTUS point in that direction. For a somewhat big picture look at what it means going forward we can do no better than read Turley’s views, contained in two articles. There were several decisions handed down yesterday, and Turley chose to write on two key cases.

The first had to do with Trump’s Birthright Citizenship EO. The decision wasn’t on the merits—that will come later—but it was nonetheless momentous. In effect, the SCOTUS largely shut down the practice of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions. This, of course, had become a key tactic of the Progs to tie up actions of the federal government that they don’t like, and involved considerable forum/judge shopping. In 25 words or less form, what the SCOTUS decided was that for a nationwide injunction to issue the plaintiffs would need to satisfy the usual requirements for a class action. That, of course, means that the cost of litigation would go through the roof—with no guarantee of success. Read more about the decision in Turley’s article. Turley focuses on the nihilistic jurisprudence of the Progs rather than the legal technicalities. Among other things, he notes that Jackson is increasingly isolated even from Sotomayor and Kagan.

The Chilling Jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

...

The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.

…

The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues. It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.

The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation. Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements.

But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years.

Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.

Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”

This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.

It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.

While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.

…

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

…

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws. …, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.

Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.

For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.

The other major decision Turley addressed had to do with forced indoctrination in government schools. Again, the article highlights the nihilism of the Progs.

Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour

… The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old.

…

Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, “That comment is hurtful!”

Even if a student merely asks, “What’s transgender?,” teachers are expected to say, “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.”

Teachers were specifically told to “[d]isrupt” thinking or values opposing transgender views.

Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw.

…

The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared “another victory for right-wing culture warriors,” even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents.

However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there “will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and both education and children will “suffer” if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. ...

…

The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S.

Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools.

Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. …

...

Today, many are indeed following Jackson’s advice and leaving public schools. …

Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve “equity” and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities.

...

In probably not unrelated news, Deep Blue Illinois is facing demographic implosion:

Illinois' Disastrous Demographics: Fewer Youth, A Drop In Working-Age Residents And A Jump In Elderly

Illinois has experienced from 2020 to 2024 the nation’s worst collapse in youth aged 18 and under; the 6th-worst drop in working age residents; and a jump in the elderly’s share of population. All three in combination foreshadow a vicious cycle of higher taxes and taxpayer flight, leading to even higher taxes and more population decline.

The demographic challenges above are piling up on top of a slew of other damaging population data released recently.

Two additional charts from the article that provide a national perspective:

It’s pretty clear that, by and large, these stats reflect massive social problems in Blue states vs. Red states. Follow the link for much more discussion.