So former Justice Stephen Breyer, he who resigned in favor of Justice Ketanji bBrown Jackson, has been declaiming the turn on SCOTUS toward the right from his post retirement perch at Harvard Law School. Amazingly, lol, the NYT didn't ask him about corruption on the Court, about favors and perks not made transparent, nor about anything else relating to the core of their article, public trust. Or if asked, it wasn't printed. Instead they let Breyer drone on about textualism and judicial process, as if the public cares about the rationalizations obviously being retconned into Federalist funders' preferred outcomes.
The Court isn't going to change unless people from the outside reform it. #scotus #corruption
@aka_quant_noir well right, because none of that dramatic side story actually matters, no matter how many reporters are trying to milk allegations for clicks.
What matters from the Court are the opinions that they hand down. So Breyer was asked about the opinions, which is a good thing.
We have enough of the side show out there already. Anyone can pull up all of the mudslinging that they want already.
It's good to ask a former justice about the actual work of the Court.
