New York Times: A Transformative Term at the Most Conservative Supreme Court in Nearly a Century

What have conservatives conserved?

It became a cliché in the Alt-Right years. Conservatives were perpetual losers who have nothing but tax cuts to show for their electoral victories. In spite of controlling the Supreme Court since 1970, social conservatives had been routed at the Supreme Court on nearly every major issue. The lone exception in this drought of major victories at the Supreme Court was gun rights in the Heller decision.

I became politically active in late 2001. In my adult lifetime, I had seen conservatives repeatedly lose on affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger, Fisher v. University of Texas), illegal immigration (Arizona v. United States), gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), “trans” (Bostock v. Clayton County) and
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (Obamacare). The losing steak extends even further back to around World War II when the Supreme Court began chipping away at Jim Crow in FDR’s last two terms in the years before the Brown decision. Long after progressives lost their majority on the Supreme Court in the Reagan era, they continued to punch far above their weight and score major victories which led to sweeping social revolutions, most notably on gay marriage.

Losing at the Supreme Court is all that we have seen from conservatives for generations. It is the norm. The Supreme Court has been a battering ram for top down social revolutions. This continued through the Trump presidency when the Bostock decision came down in 2020 and the Supreme Court refused to go along with Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.

New York Times:

“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court moved relentlessly to the right in its first full term with a six-justice conservative majority, issuing far-reaching decisions that will transform American life. It eliminated the constitutional right to abortionrecognized a Second Amendment right to carry guns outside the homemade it harder to address climate change and expanded the role of religion in public life.

But those blockbusters, significant though they were, only began to tell the story of the conservative juggernaut the court has become. By one standard measurement used by political scientists, the term that ended on Thursday was the most conservative since 1931.

“The data provide stunning confirmation of the Republican-conservative takeover of the Supreme Court,” said Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at the University of Southern California who oversees the Supreme Court Database.

The last time the rate of conservative decisions even rivaled those in the term that ended Thursday was during Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s first term, which started in 2005.Since then, the final days of Supreme Court terms have tended to end with a mix of decisions pointing in different ideological directions. That changed this week, with a string of outcomes that left conservatives jubilant and energized about the court’s direction and liberals distraught. …”

In recent years, it seems like conservatives have become more radical and less tolerant of losing. The conservative legal movement was becoming the butt of jokes.

My expectation was that the Supreme Court would uphold Roe v. Wade while also upholding the Mississippi abortion ban in another 5-4 decision. It would be another token face saving victory for social conservatives which would keep the scam going. This is exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts hoped and tried to do. Instead, the “journalists” are howling with outrage after suffering several crushing defeats. The Supreme Court is “illegitimate” and has “gone rogue” after 50 years of GOP control.

Even though progressives lacked a majority on the Supreme Court, they continued to notch victories due to the power of the media. Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts cared more about flattering media headlines than wielding power to advance conservative priorities. Both the Dobbs decision and the lack of interest in the 1/6 hearings show that the media has lost a great deal of its power.

Jews have lost in the Supreme Court on prayer in schools, taxpayer funding for religious schools, gun rights and human sacrifice. The Notorious RBG has gone to her grave and seems to have taken a considerable amount of Jewish power and influence over public life with her. It has been a pleasant surprise.


  1. Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been reincarnated as a black woman and goes by the name of Ketanji Brown Jackson now.

    • Since both are spawn of hell, and contrary to Adamic white humanity, I think your observation is spot on!

  2. Wise Donald demonstrated everybody that media and other control instruments are not almighty. Donald taught how to fight and win. They are winnable.

    Now the wall is broken and enemy is inside the gates, not only in US but in Europe too. Donald is one of the greatest leaders white race ever had. He destroyed the fear and myth of invincible power.

    • There is something very important in what you’re saying here. I don’t agree with the entire sentiment, but I certainly agree that Donald Trump gave normal, conservative or “right leaning” people, especially quite people, permission to not only criticize the left but also go after the neo-cons who pretend to be on their side.

      People figured out that they don’t have to accept “the lesser of two evils” and can demand more. This is a critical part of reshaping the American right. As long as we still have the McCarthys and McConnells though, we have work to do.

  3. I imagine very, very few, if any, of those condemning the overturning of Roe v Wade have bothered to read the decision — in fact, to fully understand and appreciate it, you would have to read not only the decision (all affirmative opinions), but also the precedent and legal analysis it cites and/or references — and then do the same for the dissent — and then do the same for the original decision, including dissent, of Roe v Wade.

    This is an exercise for which few have the intellect or patient diligence.

    All of this reminds me of what Mark Lane said in one of his speeches about the Warren Report — the WR was issued in Sep 1964 as a single volume, one which stated the basic conclusions of the investigation, and summarized the key supporting evidence — two months later, in Nov 1964, the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits were released — as related by Lane, on the day the 26 volumes were publicly available, the NYT published a column by Anthony Lewis saying how they proved that the conclusion of the WR, i.e. that LHO acted alone, was correct — Lane then goes on to say it took him over 18 months to read the 26 volumes.

    Listen to the first 10m:

    Mark Lane speaking at UCLA 10/7/1966

    You can file this under secular moral absolutism.

  4. Everyone knows that the way you take power is by banning abortion in some red states and allowing prayer in schools.

  5. I’m positive Justice McReynolds would have issued a blistering dissent to this sort of hopium.

Comments are closed.