Well, based on three more 5-4 decisions issued this week and Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement, the courthouse is burning out of control and all attorneys, and citizens, should start wearing black armbands to mourn the demise of the third branch of U.S. constitutional government. Per well-established pattern since conservative rigging of the high court, the three (3) women justices dissented in each of these decisions:Trump v. Hawaii (the Muslim travel ban case); National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. AFSCME 31.
To an attorney of over forty (40) years practice, what to make of these three decisions issued by SCOTUS June 26-27, 2018?
On first blush, from disregard of historical fact (Roberts in Trump v. Hawaii) to bizarre incantation of totalitarian communist and Nazi excess together with hortatory obeisance to free markets (Thomas in National Institute of Family) to the resurgent Lochnerian myopia to socio-economic realities (Alito in Janus), they are scary and grotesquely expedient to the prevailing powers that be, principally Donald Trump and the plutocrats behind him. The second obviously seen fact is that only the SCOTUS-seat-stealing by Gorsuch enabled such travesties as these. And the third remarkable point, already made, being that the three female justices, as always in decisions of this sort, are in the minority dissent, kind of a judicial “provisional ballot.” [TO BE CONTINUED…]
 The breakdown of deciding justices was as follows: Trump v. Hawaii: Roberts wrote for majority including Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kennedy, and Breyer and Sotomayor each wrote dissents, with Kagan and Ginsburg also dissenting; Natl. Inst. Of Family & Life: Thomas wrote for majority including Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kennedy, and Breyer authored dissent in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined; Janus: Alito wrote for majority in which Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy joined, and Kagan wrote dissent in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Breyer joined.