At the time, it wasn't this widely regarded as a power grab by conservative politicians in the Supreme Court. Not saying it wasn't, but it was not seen as such. It was nowhere near as brazen as what we're seeing today. Confidence was still quite high at the time or at least it returned quickly.
A bad decision like Bush v Gore or Citizens United was seen as an anomoly. While there were people who saw these as the political flexing they were, the general sentiment of the public was, "well, it must have been a difficult and complex decision. I'm sure they understand the legal impact and made the best decision that they could for the future of the country."
LOL no. Those decisions were utter bullshit.
Of course they were, in retrospect. But at the time, they were considered flukes.
No they weren't... They were derided as conservative power grabs then as now. Even then they talked about Roberts as an activist conservative, as the "decider" vote in a 5v4 court, who played politics to maintain the appearance of neutrality on unimportant, to them, decisions so they could strike when it mattered.
Hell, even then mass media referred to "conservative" and "liberal" justices, which clearly shows judges were not neutral.
At the time, it wasn't this widely regarded as a power grab by conservative politicians in the Supreme Court. Not saying it wasn't, but it was not seen as such. It was nowhere near as brazen as what we're seeing today. Confidence was still quite high at the time or at least it returned quickly.
A bad decision like Bush v Gore or Citizens United was seen as an anomoly. While there were people who saw these as the political flexing they were, the general sentiment of the public was, "well, it must have been a difficult and complex decision. I'm sure they understand the legal impact and made the best decision that they could for the future of the country."
LOL no. Those decisions were utter bullshit.
Of course they were, in retrospect. But at the time, they were considered flukes.
No they weren't... They were derided as conservative power grabs then as now. Even then they talked about Roberts as an activist conservative, as the "decider" vote in a 5v4 court, who played politics to maintain the appearance of neutrality on unimportant, to them, decisions so they could strike when it mattered.
Hell, even then mass media referred to "conservative" and "liberal" justices, which clearly shows judges were not neutral.