"The public's faith in the Court erodes because the public does not understand why the Court does or does not do what it does."
"The public only sees a result, "the Court did not protect Roe."
"If that result does not fit the public's desired political outcome then they lazily blame the Court ("bunch of political hacks") instead of trying to figure out why the Court does what it does."
"The public doesn't do that because the "why" can't be wrapped up in a 30 second sound bite."
You have all the time in the world to type, as your response has made clear. Thank you for responding.
"The Court not issuing an injunction in the Texas abortion law case is a perfect example."
Sure, why not.
"The Court didn't "protect Roe" in that case because procedurally and precedentially it couldn't."
People hear this and lose faith in the Court.
"Who would they enjoin?"
Great question. Why does someone have to be enjoined to protect Roe? At what point is the fetus enjoined, as to whomsoever might enjoin it, has this been adjudicated yet?
"One state district court judge, one district court clerk, one anti-abortion activist--the only defendant's before the Court."
I'm sure this is relevant in ways that people who have lost faith in the Supreme Court don't understand.
"Neither the judge nor the clerk enforce the law and the activist said he had no intent to enforce the law."
People can change their minds. Newly appointed elected or appointed judges and clerks can tread a different path.
"Entering an injunction against those persons would have accomplished nothing."
As it would likewise have accomplished nothing when subsequent persons do intend to enforce the law.
"There would still be hundreds of judges, clerks and activists that would not be bound by such an injunction."
Then the Court is obliged to bind them as needed, barring their seeming inability to, what's that word, enjoin all such activity.
"Does that make sense--do something politically appeasing and accomplish nothing--just to make it look good to an ignorant public."
My legal instructor Et_Al informs me that the Court owes no ponderance whether something make sense politically -- provided the thoughts do not run afoul of the Constitution, which this author feels they do here.
"Would that instill confidence in the Court?"
Narratively, it would serve to erode confidence in the Court, by crafting a law so cleverly that the supreme legal authority is powerless to prevent or even forestall its clearly illegal application.
"In this thread..."