“If that’s the way they think, what good are they?
Obviously, they excel at avoiding controversial matters like POTUS eligibility on technicalities. Then when challenged to a point where containment is no longer an option, they super excel at determing what is best for the “greater good of society.” Often in total disregard for the Constitution.
To answer your question, as obligated strict adherents to our Constitution, they are increasingy becoming irrevelent. Especially when their rulings are founded upon the “greater good” rather than our Constitution.
There are many examples of this precedent. You may be able to recall some of them from the past. That’s why I argue the precedent for the “greater good” has been well established.
Husseins’s eligibility fits neatly into this precedent.
I was unaware that the Supreme Court considered the “greater good of society” instead of the Constitution at times! Irrelevant is a good description of judges who shirk their duty in favor of POLITICAL considerations. They exist to act as a check on the other two branches of government and to ensure that the constitution is upheld.
We should get rid of them if that is how they operate. Perhaps they could together write some kind of “Dear Abby” column if they are not yet ready to retire. They could call it Ask the Irrelevant Nine.