Everyone stating this is a good thing because it's not the Supreme Court's job to do xyz are conveniently ignoring the fact these decisions are being made due to tribalism, not out of some concern for rule of law.
These people could be part of their respective tribes because they believe that the rule of law dictates one thing or another. Many of these Justices in the past have followed their own philosophies, which happen to align with one party or another.
We just happen to have people who have a very... different... idea about what the law means than their predecessors.
The actual decisions do not reflect that at all, and they go into great depth to explain the reasoning, none of which seems remotely ideological (other than legal ideology which is orthogonal to political leaning).
Like the school prayer case from yesterday where Gorsuch was literally making things up in his opinion, so Sontomayer included photos of the offending action to show that Gorsuch was making things up in his opinion?
The legal trappings of the conservative positions have been explicitly merely legal trappings.
How do you know this? Do you disagree with the outcomes or agree with them? If you disagree with the outcomes then it may come across as calling people who disagree with you tribal because they reached the "wrong" conclusions.
Also, even if the surpreme court was completely correct to do this: why is this their focus? Why is this so much more important than the the thousands of other cases waiting for their attention?
