So I wanted to delve into why parts of the Right are so... despondent about the Court. 1/

From my perspective, the story really starts from a 2005 speech given in opposition to John Roberts' appointment as Chief Justice. The speech was given by a first-term senator named Barack Obama. 2/

I'm going to screencap some of that speech here. It is a thoughtful speech that delves into the role of the judiciary. 3/

(The full speech text is here. http://obamaspeeches.com/031-Confirmation-of-Judge-John-Roberts-Obama-Speech.htm) /3a

The 5% cases--the tough ones, as Obama puts it--there's the rub. Because we *know* how Obama wants his justices to rule in those cases. And indeed, they do. He laid this out in the campaign. https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2008/02/29/barack-obamas-kinder-gentler-judges 4/

The Court's four liberal justices are certainly not a monolith. Though they're all from the Left, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsburg have pretty different legal philosophies, and sometimes they come to different decisions. 5/

But on the BIG cases involving controversial public issues, on issues like health care, abortion, etc., the Left justices are going to rule a certain way. In the 5 percent cases, the four liberals on the Court rule a certain way. 6/

Now, part of this is the docket. The makeup of Court cases in 2020 is not as liberal as in, say, 1973. I look back at a case like San Antonio Independent SD v. Rodriguez (1973), and it would surprise me if the Left had 4 votes for Thurgood Marshall's position. (Maybe 2.) 7/

(For the summary, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez). 7a/

But in 2020, on the 5% cases, the Right will not vote as a predictable ideological bloc. There are defectors. This happens *over and over.* 8/

I do not judge the merits of these decisions in this thread. I'm not a lawyer, merely an observer, and it's not relevant for the broader point. 9/

But one can see the frustration, certainly, for people on the Right. For example, Roberts consistently finds ways to rule as a conservative on issues *less* important to rank-and-file conservatives. Seila Law is perfect. 10/

Your average conservative voter probably doesn't *like* the CFPB, but only b/c it's the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren and the pride and joy of Barack Obama. I'm *certain* that rank-and-file voters are not moved by the separation of powers issue. 11/

But those are the areas where conservatives tend to win--procedural stuff w/ limited practical consequences for the specific issue. Even today's abortion ruling, where it does appear that Roberts did another bit of sleight of hand, is a "loss" from this perspective. 12/

Fundamentally I think this is an unhealthy view of the judiciary--an entity responsible for providing "wins" and "losses." But it is the inevitable consequence of Congressional dysfunction: as Congress fails to govern, the Court steps in and fills the vacuum. 13/

So that's where we are today: the Right has a solid majority on the Court--Roberts is not a liberal. Neither is Gorsuch. But they don't get what they *really* want, after quite literally 40 years of promises of Court appointments. 14/

Here's an amazing stat: FIFTEEN of the last nineteen SCOTUS justices have been appointed by Republicans. Roe v. Wade is still in effect. Is it any wonder why Republican voters get pissed about this stuff? 15/