The greatest act of incivility in American politics is accurately describing a reactionary justice’s public statements and legal opinions, cont’d

John Roberts really leaned into the “don’t believe the lyin’ eyes of the dissenters” accusations this term, and given both how consequential and how nutty the Court’s current and/or recent work product has been it’s not surprising:

At the close of one of the most consequential and least constitutional terms in the Supreme Court’s history, it’s hard to ignore one particularly offensive trend: the right-wing justices’ repeated and patronizing attempts to minimize the importance of their unprecedented decisions.

There’s nothing to see here, they regularly seem to say; everyone who is upset at their decisions is being hysterical and should just calm down. Take a few recent examples:

• In his majority opinion in the case about presidential immunity, Chief Justice John Roberts mocked the three liberal dissenters for striking “a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.” (Reality check: The immunity ruling — which gave presidents carte blanche to break most criminal laws when carrying out their official duties — is not grounded in any clause of the Constitution. It went far beyond what even the most pessimistic court observers expected; the dissenters, if anything, responded with restraint.)
• During oral arguments in a case that pitted Idaho’s near-total abortion ban against the federally guaranteed right of a woman to end her pregnancy if necessary to stabilize a dire medical crisis, Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the government’s concerns. “Nobody’s suggesting that the woman is not an individual and she doesn’t — she doesn’t deserve stabilization,” the justice who wrote the opinion striking down Roe v. Wade said with his trademark irritation. “Nobody’s suggesting that.” (Reality check: That is precisely what Idaho was suggesting, by arguing that federal law doesn’t pre-empt the state ban.)
• Or take the chief justice again, writing for the court in upholding a federal law that prohibits domestic abusers from possessing guns. A federal appeals court had struck down the law as unconstitutional. “Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases,” the chief justice wrote, explaining why the lower court had been wrong. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” (Reality check: The lower court was following the letter of a Supreme Court ruling from two years ago, which held that any gun law without an almost exact analogue from the founding era — like laws that apply to domestic abusers — is unconstitutional.)

Behavior like this has a name: gaslighting, a form of psychological manipulation that involves making people doubt their own, accurate perception of reality. If the term has gotten a workout in recent years, that’s because a lot of people are engaging in it. The right-wing justices have become masters of the form, telling the American people again and again not to believe what they see with their own eyes.

“The court is trying to distance itself from the monsters it created,” Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University and the author of “The Cult of the Constitution,” told me. “They’re trying to say, ‘We don’t know where you got these crazy ideas from!’ But of course we do know where they got them from.”

The “nothing to see here” bullshit was particularly glaring in Trump v. US. You’ll note if you look at Roberts’s opinion that he doesn’t deny that the Court’s Republicans have just offered full immunity to any president who wants to send Navy SEALS to execute his political rivals, he just claims no president would ever take advantage of their newly granted monarchical powers, in a context in which Donald Trump is the presidential frontrunner.

And as Dahlia Lithwick observes, it’s hard not to see a gendered component to this bad faith condescensions.