The cult of the Court
By 
Apart from the nullification of the most important civil rights statute since Reconstruction, Mrs. Lincoln, this last Supreme Court term was just fine, says David Cole:
The Supreme Court term that ended July 1 marked the first for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and as a result the first in which conservatives had a decisive 6–3 majority. Many liberals had braced themselves for the worst, expecting that with the addition of a third Trump-appointed justice, Chief Justice John Roberts would no longer be able to exercise his sometimes moderating influence and the Court would veer sharply to the right. But with the notable exception of a disturbingly partisan voting rights decision on the last day of the term, the doomsayers were wrong. In many of its most controversial cases, the Court came to surprisingly bipartisan agreement.
Is this analysis correct? Nope — an already very reactionary Court turned distinctly to the right, and it’s about to get a lot worse given the cases on the docket for the next term. Why would a liberal commentator try to sell Roberts’s bullshit-minimalism rather than helping readers see through it? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but:
Because he litigates in front of the Supreme Court and it is literally his job to lie to reporters in order to suck up to the justices. https://t.co/Gnh4cY11QW— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 6, 2021
I know that I'm a broken record about this point this afternoon, but it astounds me that there are veteran Supreme Court reporters who don't understand that lawyers who litigate before the Court have a conflict of interest & cannot be trusted to speak honestly about the justices.— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 6, 2021
The elite legal liberals who feel compelled for various reasons to act as if Earl Warren never left are the definition of Not. Helping., as are the reporters and editors who enable them.