> And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues.

Care to cite some examples?

In my experience, the "big" cases, that the media has been talking about are all decided to be big after the fact. There are a multitude of cases that everyone is anticipating being big but they are ruled the "right" way and the outrage isn't there.

It seems like everyone has swallowed the partisanship of the SCOTUS hook line and sinker but that's just not how they operate. Almost all of the "conservative" members of the court were appointed almost exclusively on their opinions of Roe v Wade and the "conservative" part of a conservative justice doesn't mean Republican it's a reference to their judicial philosophy. Plus, most of them were appointed at a time where Republicans (and Democrats) had very different political positions and the positions of the Justices don't change with the weather of the parties because of the lifetime appointments.

At this point I'm not sure which members of the various outrage factories actually believe the court works that way or are just throwing out red meat for their readers.

[0]https://apnews.com/live/birthright-citizenship-decision-supr...