this is consistent with my general sense that many of the justices really, really don't understand both how much they are disliked by an increasingly fervent and expansive segment of population, and the extent to which those people are now paying attention in a way they weren't before
competing theory of john roberts from @stevenmazie.bsky.social: maybe roberts is still trying to play the institutionalist game but has lost his read on how the court is perceived by the public x.com/stevenmazie/...
No politicians on the Court anymore and it shows. Last was O'Connor, state legislator. To appoint a governor or senator now, once common, would be nearly unthinkable. So we've got eight circuit judges and one ex-SG who are not just de facto politicians, they're very powerful *amateur* politicians.
My "Casino" 3-3-3 theory of the court. Roberts (Kav + Barrett) is Sam and Alito (Thomas + Gorsuch) is Nicky. Sam to Nicky: 'This place is a license to print laws and the Dems can't touch us, and you risk that for what, drawing this heat?' Sam is a manager, a politician - but things get out of hand.
The thing that's solid about the analogy is that Sam knows his place. He knows why he is in charge of a casino. But he also loves gambling itself - for itself. He would be happiest just running the casino like a smooth machine - house wins - and kicking profits to the Big Boys who put him there.
Sam is an institutionalist. But the institution of the casino exists within a larger web of power relations. Ultimately, that web of relations makes it be that Nicky has to be there - Sam can't do without him. But Nicky de-stabilizes the institution. Sam's just the manager, not Nicky's real boss.
And think about when Sam tries to manage the public relations situation by going on TV. Total disaster. He's a great casino manager but can't game out all the public relations angles, especially when the whole thing looks so bad that drawing more attention just can't be good. You can't spin it.
