I have not been the kindest of critics of SCOTUS and that has not changed I still think they are nothing more than political hacks.

I did read an article that I found interesting if it is accurate….

…

The court’s action, although temporary, raised the deepest concern about the intentions of Chief Justice John Roberts and the “conservative” bloc (whose version of conservatism no longer extends to upholding legal precedents or constitutional norms).

Americans rightly worry that the court will allow or even encourage President Donald Trump to deny voting rights, intimidate voters, and tamper with balloting, if only because the court majority has so relentlessly expanded his authority and exempted him from ordinary oversight.

In one decision after another, they have awarded him the powers and immunities of a monarch in a casual manner that would have made the founders retch.

Indeed, the majority has consistently lent its authority and reputation to his dictatorial ambitions, while increasing the power of the wealthy in politics and diminishing or eliminating the protections afforded to society’s least powerful groups. Making many of these bad decisions worse is the justices’ recent habit of issuing important rulings on the “shadow docket,” unsigned and unexplained, which undermines their integrity and shields them from criticism. It is hard to know how to evaluate a decision when no logic or law is offered to undergird its validity.

It would not be unlike the Roberts right-wingers to upend this election with a shadow docket ruling, a cowardly maneuver they have adopted in more than two dozen cases since Trump returned to the White House — and ruled in his favor in more than three out of four.

https://www.alternet.org/supreme-court-mail-in/

Roberts has seemingly been doing Donny’s work for him in recent rulings and some think that could bite them in the ass come midterm elections….if that is true then could Roberts’ recent dissenting opinion be a false flag to make them look more neutral?

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals on Monday in a dispute over the planned White House ballroom, warning that his colleagues’ ruling threatens Congress’ control of federal spending. In a six-page dissent, Roberts said the $400 million project is “likely unlawful” because lawmakers never explicitly signed off on funding, reports the Hill, and he rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the work qualifies as routine White House upkeep. The dissent marks a rare break for Roberts from Trump’s claims to executive power, notes CNN, with the chief justice borrowing a line from Winston Churchill: “‘We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us’,” adding, “All the more reason to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

The 5-4 majority didn’t decide whether the ballroom itself is legal. Instead, it ruled that a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing to sue, saying her objections amounted to a simple dislike of the project. That cleared the way for above-ground construction to resume on what the administration now calls a national security upgrade. Roberts countered that the plaintiff’s long involvement in historic preservation and her interest in the White House as it currently stands make her injury concrete enough to get into court. “The White House is not just any building,” he wrote, and the decision is “no victory for the separation of powers.”

I realize this is just a minor thing but it comes when they are most worried about the midterms….so is this just a game for popularity (or as close to it as they could come in this short time)?

Is this just smoke blown up our butts?

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”