"It was designed to call balls and strikes."

Wrong

Courts are to resolve conflicts in law that result in injured parties by applying a remedy.

IOW for the court to become involved there needs to be an injured party and the court must be able to remedy said injury.

the current court has been one of the most politically activist courts in our nation's history.

this corrupt court has pulled decisions out of whole cloth and indeed lied to reach political decisions (Kennedy v Bremerton BoE).

Ex. The Biden loan forgiveness case.

There was NO injury by the plaintiffs in the case.

The named plaintiff specifically said they did not want to participate in the lawsuit and in fact were making money and not losing money due to Biden's loan forgiveness. Therefore there was NO injury for the court to remedy.

The only entity that could conceivably be considered injured would have been Congress whose spending authority may have been considered damaged.

Yet Congress is an equal branch of government and has their own power to address federal branch overreach.

The Supreme Court by accepting the case and ruling as they did took the role of the legislative branch and LEGISLATED that Biden was not spending the money as legislated. There was no injured party that would require adjudication of the law (i.e. interpretation of the law). No injured party, no claim that can be remedied. That is the essence of legislating from the bench.

Major Questions doctrine is just a fancy way of stealing power

This has been explained to Jeff numerous times but jeff being jeff....

Now that the court has a majority that takes an originalism approach to jurisprudence the left has to try and destroy the entire institution.

Originalism is a lie and even if it weren't, is an inherently unjust way to govern.

Example

In 1787 women and people of color had zero political power and therefor any laws written at the time would have had zero consideration of their rights or interests. As such the laws as "originally" written conceived and justified would be inherently misogynistic and racist. That is a simple fact.

To rely in 2026 on laws written, conceived and justified on the opinions, conditions and legal theory of inherently misogynistic and racist times results, without fail, that women and people of color have fewer rights, are essentially, second class citizens.

Example. The Dodds decision relied upon historic considerations of abortions and the rights of women to terminate pregnancies. These were times when women had zero rights, were considered property of the males in their lives and when science was far less advanced to understand the biological processes. So, the law as interpreted in Dodd in 2022 was based on considerations of "law" or customs from when had no impact om the "law" and little if any on custom. This is inherent misogyny. A woman today, whose rights are based on interpretations of laws that were promulgated and passed when women had no rights means women's rights TODAY are less inherently fair.

That is a simple fact.

I did no such thing dumbass. I am explaining to YOU this court's concept of originalism. They specifically denied abortion is a right because it wasn't spelled out in either the constitution or the amendments and used the inherently misogynistic interpretation of history and tradition to reach their decision. Thomas said the same concept should apply to gay sex and contraceptives (conveniently ignoring racial intermarriage), meaning he and likely soon a majority on the court will soon rule that these unwritten rights aren't actually rights even though the constitution specifically states that unwritten rights belong to the people.

The only profoundly ignorant person around here is you. and you are also a liar on top of that.

. They specifically denied abortion is a right because it wasn't spelled out in either the constitution or the amendments and used the inherently misogynistic interpretation of history and tradition to reach their decision"
Even some of abortions biggest supporters on the left who are legal scholars have admitted that roe was poorly adjudicated. You using " mysoginistic" is just playing the victim card.

#25 | Posted by BellRinger

Basing the rights of women in 2026 on how abortion was considered in the 13th century is simply unjust, yet that is what was done.

History and tradition, especially cherry-picked history and tradition MEANS that the rights of people today are based on how those people were treated when they had no rights. That is a 2 tier system of rights.

And yes cherry picked (Ben Franklin had an abortion methodology published) which means the insertion of politics into the justice's decision.

that is essentially incontrovertible. I think even Alito would recognize that fact.

" rule that these unwritten rights aren't actually rights even though the constitution specifically states that unwritten rights belong to the people."
You have a long history of doomsday predictions that never materialize. I remember how you went ballistic over the court overturning Chevron and all of the doomsday scenarios you predicted that haven't happened.

#26 | Posted by BellRinger a

Women are dying for want of an abortion, yet you don't care, cause you're a sociopath

" Originally. Article V was designed to ensure that the Constitution could be updated to meet changing times, but with a high threshold to ensure stability and widespread consensus."
It's called amendments' and the Constitution has 27 of them.

#27 | Posted by BellRinger

Does the constitution need to be amended for every individual right, like gay sex, contraceptives, inter racial marriage? Or does the existing constitution already "Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Because this court decided you do not have a right to bodily autonomy, i.e. abortion.

Those are 3rd party harms A woman does not have the right to control what happens to her body

Like trans care government dictates ng what one can do to their own body. No longer have bodily autonomy