There's definitely a techbro follymath vibe with some of the court's recent conservative opinions. Only instead of pronouncing themselves experts after reading a few Wikipedia pages, it's after thumbing through a Claremont amicus brief.
In Bruen, Breyer’s dissent points out numerous amici say Thomas is misreading a key 17th-century English case, and in a footnote Thomas just concedes the whole thing is a dog & pony show to pick & choose to the answer he prefers
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21p...
Because there's a tremendous amount of institutional power that flows down from the court into other courts, and that's not something you can just ignore or can just rip out like old carpeting while still expecting your government to function.
Can we coin the term "Great Leap Backward" here? Truly this is a caricature of Maoism: a panel of 6 ideological zealots trying to direct the economy without technical expertise. They'd put a steel furnace in every backyard just for the smoke.
Did you know how Gorsuch's opinion on the EPA case completely bungled the difference between "nitrogen oxide" (a term for poisonous gases emitted by fossil fuels) and "nitrous oxide" (laughing gas)? It's akin to mistaking water for hydrogen peroxide, b/c they both have hydrogen and oxygen atoms.
