The liberal mainstream media is using the opening of the Supreme Court’s term this year as an excuse to attack its conservative members in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.  As Mark Paoletta writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The ascendant originalist approach at the court is more faithful to the Constitution, but it is less welcoming to the liberal policy-making many have come to expect from the court since the Warren era. Expect to see many more baseless attacks on the court’s conservative members in the future.

As Peter Roff points out this effort has been somewhat successful in swaying surface level public opinion polls of the Court.

The undermining of the court’s legitimacy is part of the political process, not the legal and certainly not the democratic one. Everything from the references to its poll numbers to the way the current majority is described – conservative, far-right, hard right – rather than originalist, constitutionalist or even as justices favoring a narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s meaning rather than an expansive one – are all notes in the same song. Progressives want to restore the court’s position as the final word on liberal causes it’s been since FDR and are not especially concerned about how they do it. They reject the idea it should function as the referee in disputes between the branches of the federal government, the states and, on occasion, the people.

As the liberal justices grow older and as the conservative majority decides an increased number of controversial cases, the Supreme Court is feeling more pressure from the Left. The Justice feeling it the most is Justice Stephen Breyer. Despite Justice Breyer generally championing the viewpoints of the Left, many are pressuring him to retire so the President can nominate a younger justice to replace him.

Thursday's decisions by the Supreme Court were a major defeat for certain Democrat politicians and liberal activists. Yes, Obamacare was preserved in a 7-2 decision, and in another 9-0 decision, religious liberty was preserved. But liberal court packing activists lost yesterday. As the Committee for Justice wrote:

Consider the contrast between reality and Democrats' exaggerated predictions and fear mongering. Last fall, during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, Democratic senator after Democratic senator told stories of constituents who would suffer, if not die, were Barrett confirmed. She would provide the fifth "far right" vote for striking down the Affordable Care Act, they said, some of them implying that Barrett had promised President Trump to strike down the ACA in return for her nomination. . . .

Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, but so much for closely divided far right decisions and constituents robbed of health insurance by a nefarious deal between Barrett and Trump. Instead, what we got today was a 7-2 rejection of the challenge to the ACA with Barrett in the majority, a unanimous and narrow decision protecting religious objections to same-sex marriage, and an overall picture of a moderate Court which will sometimes disappoint liberals, sometimes disappoint conservatives, and often the split the baby.

In a victory for religious liberty, the United States Supreme Court granted an injunction last Wednesday, protecting two New York religious organizations from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's executive order that imposed "very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as 'red' or 'orange' zones" pending a decision on the merits of the case by the Second Circuit.

The Court's unsigned per curiam opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote concurring opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer also authored a dissenting opinion that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor wrote her own dissenting opinion joined by Justice Kagan.

Democrats shouldn't blame Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for “ruining” the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process by not waiting until after the election. The truth is, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden broke the process long ago. . .

Biden is responsible for the single worst political trend in the last 35 years: the politicization of Supreme Court nominations.

In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reinstate the Wisconsin absentee ballot deadline extension ordered by a lower court earlier this year and kept the deadline established by Wisconsin law in place. As a result, absentee ballots must be received by election day to be counted. This is another victory for the integrity of November's election.

Over 300 RNLA leaders, members, and friends have submitted a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in support of the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Barrett's nomination has been voted out of the Judiciary Committee and is awaiting confirmation by the full Senate.

2020 has led to many differences among the American people, but a majority of Americans agree on 2 things: Senators should confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court and say "no" to court packing. The percentage of Americans who support Judge Barrett's confirmation has increased by nearly 15% since President Trump announced her nomination to the Court.

The final day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett showed what we already knew: Senate Democrats incorrectly believe that the courts should make policy decisions.

Senate Democrats were relentless this week in their quest to get Judge Barrett to weigh in on their campaign issues, and signal how she would approach cases that might come before her. /2

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) October 15, 2020

After 3 long days of hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as one of the most brilliant Supreme Court nominees in recent history. Former Judiciary Committee Counsel Greg Nunziata and current TV Commentator argued: 

ACB turned in one of the best hearing performances of 21st century Supreme Court nominees.

I'd say Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett are the top three (coincidentally, one for each POTUS), but not sure in what order.

— Gregg Nunziata (@greggnunziata) October 14, 2020