Hmm well I'm a foreigner so am not really affected by Supreme Court judgements, and I would say that this particular court seems to be doing an unusually good job of just following the law as written regardless of outcome. Certainly it seems true when compared to the supreme court equivalents in most other countries, which are largely a joke.
As an example, the Supreme Court made another judgement this week that has pissed off lots of conservatives: it dismissed a case about social media companies banning political speech about COVID at the behest of the government, on the basis of lack of standing. This was widely seen as a blow against free speech. If you read the judgement though the problem was simply that the people being censored hadn't shown clearly that it was the government doing the censoring vs the social network executives, and were relying on a sort of ambient argument that the government was leaning on the companies in ways that weren't always clear, and so there was a First Amendment violation at one-hop-removed.
The court rejected this reasoning, saying they could only rule on cases where the people doing the appeal could show they had been directly harmed by the government, so they weren't even going to consider the rest of the case. If the Supreme Court were a bunch of conservative activists they wouldn't have done that. They'd have accepted the indirect censorship argument, accepted that the case had standing and then ruled against the federal agencies. And in fact the conservatives I saw talking about it were raging against "technical" judgements that could only be the result of pro-regime bias etc etc. But the judgement seemed logically sound to me. So the idea that the current court is packed with judges abusing process to get specific ideological outcomes looks very wrong.
I never paid attention to Supreme Court rulings before a year or so ago but suddenly it seems like they're all over HN. So this is the first time I've read them. The thing that's really striking is how stupidly obvious all these cases seem to be and how weak the original legal reasoning being overturned was. You can understand the argument within a few pages of reading, usually. Like when Roe v Wade was struck down, all I knew about it was that it was related to legalizing abortion. So naturally I figured it was something to do with abortion law. When it was struck down, I learned for the first time that it actually relied on some convoluted backflips to do with privacy law that had nothing to do with abortion, moreover it seemed almost everyone in the legal profession had always known it was logically dubious and the product of an activist court, etc. It was pretty surprising that such a judgement had survived so long, honestly.
Likewise for this judgement, what they're saying is there's not only the Constitution but also a specific act of Congress which both state that when statutes are ambiguous the courts decide on the correct interpretation. In the original Chevron judgement those laws appear to have been ignored and the courts started letting the executive branch decide what ambiguous law meant. That then became just the way things are done, but the law had never actually been changed to allow that. Once again this judgement seems .... kinda obvious? It's not exactly a complex feat of legal reasoning. The laws says the courts resolve ambiguity, they weren't doing it, now they've been told to do it. End of judgement.
It's quite fascinating how many commenters just assume that if there's a decision they don't like from a court it must be due to bias and corruption. Makes me wonder what they think when there's a decision they do like.
It's part of the polarization of politics over the past few decades where the ends justify the means and the sooner the better. People have given up on understanding underlying principles, let alone believing they are necessary for good long-term outcomes. One can even argue many have given up on the long-term entirely in favour of instant gratification of their demands for societal change .
You can see that even in this very discussion where a substantial fraction of the comments are making claims that this ruling will prevent regulation entirely -- a claim entirely unsupported by the principles in question.
