When one activist court recognizes freedoms while another activist court takes them away, maybe judicial activism itself shouldn't be how the court is measured - in the United States of America, at least.

'So, was the 'liberal' Supreme Court of the 196s-80s also judicially activist, as the Republicans used to complain loudly? If so, how can we liberals, who approved of the decisions of that Court, complain about a conservative activist Supreme Court?'

Excellent point!
Since the 1960s, we progressives have come to depend too much on the judicial branch of our government to 'protect us' from the terrible laws that our legislators deem worthy. This is a symptom of a dysfunctional democracy; unfortunately, too many Democratic politicians and voters don't want to put in the hard effort to stop these laws in the first place.

You wrote "This court is guilty of the worst judicial activism imaginable -- again, something Republicans used to complain loudly about."

Hmmm. So, was the 'liberal' Supreme Court of the 196s-80s also judicially activist, as the Republicans used to complain loudly? If so, how can we liberals, who approved of the decisions of that Court, complain about a conservative activist Supreme Court?

Or were the Republicans wrong to complain loudly about their idea of an 'activist' Court back then? If so, why are liberals right to complain about an activist Court today?

Or is it not about activism at all, but just about whose gourd is being skewered, and it's all about the politics? I would suggest not citing Republican 'hypocrisy' while criticizing an 'activist' Court, unless one can show clearly why the liberal Court was right to interpret the law as it chose but the conservative Court is wrong to interpret the law as it chooses.

Great post!

The last time Governor Jerry Brown raised taxes a wee bit via a winning proposition - sales tax, I think, I can't remember exactly how it worked - he eliminated the budget deficit, in its entirety, if I remember correctly?

As I understand it, the Supreme Court ruled fairly narrowly. They said that the website creator would be compelled to "speak" against her belief, which the First Amendment forbids. In the same way that a journalist cannot be forced to write anything s/he doesn't agree with, this website creator shouldn't either. (Whether or not constructing a website is really "speech" is another discussion.)

Having said that, it is likely a continuation of the "Roberts Court" eroding the equal protections guaranteed by the 14th amendment and 5 decades of "settled law".

First and foremost, this was *always* a novel application of an existing law into a new arena. It shouldn't really surprise us that that the "Roberts court" sees this as executive overreach.

Secondly, see my previous comment, i.e., most Americans are *not* saddled with burdensome student debt. So they won't notice one way or another.

This *can* be a great talking point in the 2024 election, but will Democrats effectively micro-target their message to those people who ARE affected?

The most common destinations were Florida, which received 28 families, and Texas, which received 14.

That represents a fraction of the nearly 79,000 migrants who entered the city since last spring, and is thousands fewer than Gov. Greg Abbott has sent out of Texas. But the fact that New York City paid for trips to Republican strongholds could further inflame national tensions ...'
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/eric-adams-hammered-florida-and-texas-over-migrants-but-he-sent-asylum-seekers-to-both-00103447

The last three times California levied this tax on health plans, it used the money to balance the budget during economic downturns. Now, for the first time, much of the revenue will be spent to improve the state’s publicly subsidized health care system — and in a year when the state faces a $32 billion budget deficit.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/24/california-strikes-huge-deal-unlocking-billions-for-health-care-00103476

We're happy that SCOTUS didn't completely destroy the USA with the ISL ruling. We consider that a win. Wow!

Worse: Three of them said, fine, go ahead, let's destroy the nation.

Wow!

President Biden received yet another Most Impressive Democrat of the Week award today, Friday June 30, 2023 courtesy of the powers that be at ChrisWeigant.com, reality-based political blogger extraordinaire, so I just wanted to say, Congratulations, President Biden and I appreciate your great efforts this week, at least on the domestic front. :)

I'm still not convinced, though, that Biden and his fellow Dems are fully capable of taking the economic argument away from Republicans and making the case against, wait for it, the many decades long Republican cult of economic failure where it needs to be made. Which is everywhere and all the time.

Unless Biden goes on the airwaves of FoxNews (like he was so wont to do when he was a US Senator) or, in a more fun move, debate RFK Jr and/or Marianne Williamson and pretend he's debating Trump, what good will all of his economic touting do?

While the world may not be laughing at Biden, most countries in the Pew poll aren't exactly overflowing with confidence in Biden's handling of international affairs, NATO countries included ...

"As with views of the U.S., Poland and Hungary stand out for their stark disagreement about the U.S. president, representing the highest and lowest ratings in the survey, respectively. More than eight-in-ten Poles have confidence in Biden when it comes to international affairs. Just 19% of Hungarians agree. And while the share of who have confidence in the U.S. president is at an all-time high in Poland, it is at a record low in Hungary, dropping 12 percentage points since 2022.

"Hungary is not the only NATO ally with limited trust in Biden. Roughly half or more in Spain, France, Greece and Italy – all NATO member states – say they do not have confidence in Biden to do the right thing regarding world affairs."