^^^ "
The court's new conservative majority has used obscure procedural orders to shift American jurisprudence definitively to the right," Vladeck writes."
Yet doesn't give one example.
....and these days, the Constitution itself is seen as obscure by a lot of people in gov, the media and sadly, the general public.
Also, why no complaints about the past 80 or so years where the court definitively shifted American jurisprudence to the left? Vladeck doesn't seem to have a problem with
that.
...but get a couple years with a court that actually uses the Constitution on which to base its rulings and the left freaks out.
How dare we not always get our way, they think.
"
The Trump administration, meanwhile, asked for emergency relief a whopping 41 times and got its way 28 times."
Again, no examples given.
What's important here is, what were those issues the court heard? Were they ones with true Constitutional issues about them?
Just because the court rules on something in a manner one may not personally agree with, does not make the ruling wrong. Nor is it a reason to attack the court, as we've seen in many recent hit pieces over the past 2 or 3 years.
The only thing that can make it wrong, is if it is not in harmony with the Constitution and its original intent.<----- Anything in gov that goes against that, is abhorrent, and we should all be in agreement on that.
The Constitution says what it says, not what any particular person might prefer it to say.