Democrats continue to show that they have different standards for the conduct of conservative versus liberal Supreme Court Justices. Senate Democrats are demanding that Justice Alito recuse himself from certain future cases because he has spoken out against the dangerous Supreme Court "ethics" legislation currently making its way through the Senate. However, it is apparently acceptable for liberal Justice Elena Kagan to essentially speak in support of the same bill. National Review reported:

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats sent a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday demanding that he force Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from any future cases involving efforts to regulate the high Court, citing Alito’s public defense of the Court’s independence from Congressional oversight as disqualifying. Shortly after the letter was sent, Justice Elena Kagan publicly weighed in on the debate in the other direction, defending the right of Congress to check the Supreme Court. . .

Ahead of the 2022-2023 Supreme Court term, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Neil Gorsuch are speaking up about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court after the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, was leaked earlier this year. Chief Justice Roberts spoke to a group of lawyers and judges last week where he specifically addressed those who seek to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court simply because they disagree with its decisions:

Chief Justice John Roberts said disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decisions is “not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court,” on Friday in his first public remarks since the Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

This morning, the Supreme Court dropped its much-anticipated opinion on faithless electors in Chiafalo v. Washington, which was consolidated with Colorado Department of State v. Baca.  Ruling unanimously, the Court held that a state may enforce an elector’s pledge to support their party’s nominee – and the state voters’ choice – for president in the Electoral College.

For many, the Court’s opinion puts to rest the argument that electors have the freedom to depart from the will of the voters to instead cast their vote as they please; however, the Court’s decision leaves open two methods by which electors can remain faithless – (1) when the state has no law in place to compel faithfulness, and (2) when the penalty is a monetary fine that the elector can pay in exchange for his unfaithfulness.

In an interview with the dean of Georgetown University Law School on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan expressed her dismay with the Court’s recent decision regarding partisan gerrymandering, even going so far as saying that she will “never accept” the Court’s decision. In Rucho v. Common Cause, the majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions and are, therefore, beyond the reach of federal courts.