The first term of the Roberts/Scalito Supreme Court was relatively calm. Not much changed that term. So many decisions were handed down with large majorities that people talked of a new unified age of the Supreme Court. People even had the balls to compare Roberts to the greatest Chief Justice of all time, the consensus-seeking John Marshall. And then the second term came. And in it, we saw hard right decision after hard right decision. The ultra-conservative majority seems to have adopted the "philosophy" of the courts' chief intellectual lightweight (and whiner), Clarence Thomas. That "philosophy" is that stare decisis (the Marshall-era doctrine of respecting precedent) doesn't exist. I think we are about to live in an age of tyranny by krytocracy (rule by judges), in which reality is relative, precedent is irrelevant, and any policy that advances the electoral prospects of the GOP becomes Supreme Court doctrine.
Make no mistake, Anthony Kennedy is no moderate or swing justice. The fact that he votes with the moderate block 20% of the time does not make him a "swing" justice. It just shows how hard right the other justices are. There are no liberals on this court. The last liberal, the Eisenhower appointee William Brennan, was replaced by the moderate Stephen Breyer in 1994. People say there is a liberal block and conservative block, rather than the reality of a moderate block and a ultra-conservative block. They say this because they are looking from the standpoint of the ultra-conservative block, rather than middle. From the ultra-right, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens and Souter appear liberal.
It isn't a mistake that before the appointments of Roberts and Alito, 7 of the 9 justices were republican appointees, and yet it was considered to be a "liberal" court. This was because finding people so far right that they will vote the GOP line, even when life appointments remove any coercive risk to the justices, is extremely difficult. It is just hard to find people with no conscience to put on the Supreme Court, even for the GOP. The founding of the Federalist Society eliminated this problem.
In the last term, the Supreme Court invalidated a part of the century-old Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It said that the landmark 1954 school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, may not have been so correct after all, when it invalidated a voluntary school desegregation plan. And it raped the 5th and 14th amendments, in saying that the federal government (and setting precedents for states as well) can, after all, deprive people of life or liberty without due process of law, when it upheld the abortion ban.
In invalidating a part of the Sherman Act, the Supreme Court resurrected a doctrine favored by the Social Darwinist justices of the early 20th century known as "substantive due process." In this, any economic regulation can be invalidated by the court for no reason other than five justices believe it is subjectively "unreasonable."
The Supreme Court has not become a rubber stamp for the president, despite what many here think. I have no doubt that it will refuse to act as a rubber stamp when the next democrat becomes president. It is, however, a rubberstamp of the GOP. This is the benefit of having hard-right justices with no conscience. I look to see precedent after precedent invalidated by a runaway, and unstoppable, Supreme court.
Do you like contraception? Wait until the court invalidates the landmark case Griswold v Connecticut, when it says that there is no right to privacy after all. Do you want national health insurance? Wait until the court invalidates a national healthcare bill passed by the next democratic president. Are you disgusted by voter ID laws? Wait until the Supreme Court says that poll taxes aren't so bad anymore. Does the idea of forced school prayer frighten you? This is a "Christian nation," the court will no doubt say.
Elections have consequences. And many of the rights that voters thought were their's forever will be lost. And all of this because of the absolute and unprecedented stupidity they showed during the 2004 election.
Our only hope is that Scalia is 71, and Kennedy is 70. We have the senate majority, so we don't have to worry (theoretically) about any more Bush appointees. The next president, especially if she serves for two terms, will likely replace many justices. All of the moderates are in their late 60s or older. Thus, winning the presidency (and expanding our senate majority) next year are critical to preventing this right-wing tyranny.