Any other lawyers feel so completely disillusioned about the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. The courts have always been outcome-driven but they used to have to lay out an argument that, however dumb, could be applied in other cases or distinguished.

True, but even the “old way” was pretty grotesque from a legal perspective. I politically support the outcome of Obergefell, but it was an awful opinion.

Basically, SCOTUS had served as a moderate/progressive legislative body for several decades.

Now it’s acting as a conservative legislative body.

No, nothing about this is conservative. It's radically opposed to the basic "checks and balances" civics we all learned in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.

The Supreme Court wouldn't need to weigh in on all of these cases if the district courts stopped overreaching. Not all of the recent Supreme Court decisions were 6-3 (one recently was 8-1, and still others were 4-5 and even 3-6), so not all of them were split on conservative/liberal philosophical lines. The problem with lawfare and district court overreach is that the Supreme Court is setting precedent that strengthens the power of the President. This may not be what Democrats wanted as a result.

That's not what anyone wants who wants checks and balances and three branches of govt

Of course it isn't, but the lawsuits forced the issue. Instead of suing, Democrats should have negotiated.

This is really one of the stupidest posts I’ve ever read on this site, and considering eagle snafu that is saying something.

[Anonymous]

These are trying times for people who value the law, objectivity, and logical coherence. As lawyers, a lot of us are deeply invested in those values, and the past decade has been disorienting. There are times lately when it feels like these instincts and intuitions are being flat mocked -- jubilantly and with abandon -- by a party that won an election with 49.8% of the vote.

We are in the process of detonating a system that, while imperfect and often unfair, worked very well at scale for a lot of people for the past 85 years. We have no idea what we are replacing it with; the path forward will be governed by the ejaculations and whims of a personality cult that cares nothing for democracy, the rule of law, or any of the values that movement conservatives lectured the nation about for three generations.

In the Fall of 1999, David Strauss taught my 1L class one hell of an Elements of the Law course. The punchline was that a Hobbesian nightmare awaited us on the other side of a very thin barrier, and if lawyers want to do something useful they should try to shore up the barrier. We failed. It was probably over when McConnell refused to allow the Senate to perform its advice and consent obligation w/r/t Garland. You might pick an earlier or later event, but the bottom line is that it's over.

Disillusionment? It's the only sane response.

[Anonymous]

I can't feel too disillusioned because this was all completely expected. It was not hidden at all that the justices that Trump appointed were all incredibly conservative and very activist. If this is what the American people want (and by electing Trump twice, it certainly is), then so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s all just so disappointing and deflating. Why the hell can’t the Court even give the American people the respect of telling us why and under what authority they are making these decisions?

I want to believe that the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice m but it’s hard when we are in the midst of this backlash.

Let’s be real: we know why.

[Anonymous]

I was never team "term limits" for SCOTUS until the last ~3-5 years.

SCOTUS has never been apolitical but it also hasn't been this partisan in my lifetime. Watching them give away all checks and balances is disheartening and terrifying and maddening.

[Anonymous]

I agree OP, that the Supreme Court is acting laughably partisan right now. But these stays are not final opinions. At some point, they're going to actually get around to these issues and issue real opinions with reasoning, instead of just a couple sentences saying "we aren't reaching" blah blah blah.

Then we'll get to read their mistake-filled takes on history and see their hand-wavy logic and we'll be able to distinguish. Instead of right now, where we have nothing.