They are as good as you can possibly get. Trump was the first GOP President not to nominate a total dud. These guys vote more than 90$ the right way.
Most of the attacks on them here are for cases they did not take. These are complex, almost always due to “ripeness” and/or the fact that a specific case brought before them is really weak in major ways and/or doesn’t address the key underlying Constitutional law. This was the case with abortion. They booted the weak TX case in favor of a stronger MS case. They have overwhelmingly reduced the power of the Deep State in multiple rulings. They have reaffirmed private gun ownership.
The major area where people are upset were in the election fraud cases. There are two things here. First, any (ALL) courts hesitate to get involved in any election issues. The USSC in 2000 HATED having to get involved in Bush v. Gore. But more important, ANY election case has to involved a remedy that the court can clearly delineate that won’t open up 20 other cases. Say there is a fraud case in AZ: a ruling there would have to be comprehensive enough to anticipate related Constitutional challenges in 49 other states. Thus, if they don’t get a “clean” case that allows them to do this, they won’t take it.
I know most Freepers don’t like that answer, but that is absolutely the legal reasoning. In the gun case, since Heller had already refined the law, the Court could make a clear ruling. In Dobbs, it could do two things quickly and easily: overturn Roe/Casey, and send it back to the states. Note that the Court did NOT rule on when life begins.
I think Gorsuch was 100% correct when he said in one case the Court turned down, “It isn’t our job to write the laws” or words to that effect.
Very good summary, thank you.
Trump is fortunate he got to pick 3, and I’d say they have been quite good. I thank God he got that chance.