Public faith in our core institutions matters – at least some think so. We’ve heard ad nauseam about the dangers of questioning election integrity since 2020. However, the Democrat Party is silent regarding the importance of sustaining faith in the Supreme Court. Worse than silent, because Democrat politicians themselves are the source of the attacks. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced the creation of an ethics code that all Justices have agreed to adhere to. Despite this, many Democrats like Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin don't think that's enough to fulfill their demands for unworkable "ethics" standards.

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. . .

In a rare Friday decision announcement, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, the most anticipated case of the term, holding that “[t]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”  This is a historic and monumental win for the rule of law and the proper role of the courts.

At last, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have been overturned after decades of litigation by pro-life advocates and those who support following the text of the Constitution.  The authority to regulate abortion is now returned from the federal courts to where it belongs: the people and their elected representatives.

As soon as POLITICO published a leaked draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the hot takes from the Left rolled in. Demand Justice Executive Director Brian Fallon's reaction exemplified where a lot of the Left is at. They are praising the leaker as a hero, rather than acknowledging the disastrous implications the leak has for the Court.

Is a brave clerk taking this unpredecented step of leaking a draft opinion to warn the country what's coming in a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to see if the public response might cause the Court to reconsider?

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) May 3, 2022

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights held a hearing titled "An Ethical Judiciary: Transparency and Accountability for 21st Century Courts" to promote anything but ethics and transparency in the judiciary. The hearing was another effort to promote legislation that would impose unworkable recusal standards on the Supreme Court Justices and chill the speech of amici who want to make their voice heard on the most important legal issues of the day.

Witness Thomas Dupree explains how the Democrats' proposed legislation would chill the speech of amici who file briefs with the Court. pic.twitter.com/yqx320SEmR

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) May 3, 2022

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee to uphold Arizona's common-sense voter integrity laws is perhaps the most significant win for federalism and election integrity in recent history, especially at a critical time when Democrats are doing all they can to undermine the security of elections. 

BREAKING: The Supreme Court issues its opinion in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. https://t.co/lwki9GofGX

— RNLA ⚖️ (@TheRepLawyer) July 1, 2021

On Friday, the Supreme Court denied a Nevada church's emergency application for injunctive relief to allow the church to operate beyond the limit placed on them by Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak.  The church was challenging the Governor's Directive 021 which allows large groups at restaurants, bars, casinos, gyms, bowling alleys, indoor amusement parks, water parks, and pools as long as they remain at a 50% fire-code capacity limit. However, places of worship are limited to a 50-person limit regardless of the available facilities or precautions taken. The church alleges that the Governor's directive violates the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. While the Court's denial of the church's application was a single sentence long, the 4 dissenting Justices wrote 3 separate dissents totaling 24 pages expressing their concerns over the Governor's blatant disregard for religious Nevadans' Constitutional rights.

Today, the Supreme Court held in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that, under the Free Exercise Clause, if a state has a program giving public dollars to citizens to use at private schools, it cannot tell those citizens that the money can only be used at non-religious private schools.  Montana had decided that its scholarship program funds could not be used at religious schools under the state's Blaine Amendment, a legacy of a failed anti-Catholic amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Many First Amendment advocates hope this opinion proves to be a fatal blow to the discriminatory anti-religious Blaine Amendments still found in many state constitutions.

Today’s decisions by the Supreme Court were a mixed bag.  First, any way you look at it, Chief Justice Robert’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo is hard to reconcile with his dissent in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. From SCOTUSblog:

Four years ago, by a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that (among other things) required doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy joined his four more liberal colleagues in holding that, although Texas has a genuine interest in protecting the health of pregnant women, there was no evidence that the law actually did anything to promote that interest – but it did make it more difficult for women to get an abortion. Kennedy is no longer on the court, but today it was Chief Justice John Roberts who joined the court’s four liberals in ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo that a similar law from Louisiana is unconstitutional – even as he maintained that he continues to believe that the Texas case was wrongly decided.

The Supreme Court issued two opinions with direct implications for redistricting this morning, on the last day of the October 2018 Term.  In a consolidated opinion for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, the Court held that "partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."  In Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court remanded the "census" case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its rather confusing opinion that held both that it would be permissible for the the Department of Commerce to ask a question regarding citizenship on the census and that the Department did not provide an accurate reason for the question's inclusion.