Chuck Grassley, an elderly U.S. Senator (and lifetime politician) from Iowa, led the schemes to delay and deny confirmation hearings for those nominated to Federal judgeships by Democratic U.S. Presidents, and to expedite those nominated by Republicans (Neil Gorsuch after Grassley action on Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland for nine months and Barrett after Grassley helped rush through her confirmation in 30 days, just ahead of the 2020 election). This has resulted in a Supreme Court whose behaviors document a practice of ignoring long-standing precedent (decades of judicial decisions) while reshaping existing law and applying Far Right soup of legal frameworks for the United States -- rejecting consideration of race in the law, finding discrimination in the separation of church and state and in constraints on gun ownership and in anything that impinges on what they view as the U.S. constition's "colorblindness," shrinking the scope of U.S. regulatory agencies, and simple support for anti-abortion actions.
Altogether, Grassley's Supreme Court now has a majority of activist judges legislating from the bench -- rewriting laws it doesn’t like, ignoring statutory text that is inconvenient, cherry-picking historical fact sets to support their new narratives. Grassley's Supreme Court also cheery-picks (even invents) a material portion of the questions they will address in the cases that they accept for review -- converting the court into a political, rather than judicial force, and robbing plaintiffs of having "their" cases decided. Grassley's court makes partisan policy rather than searching for justice and all Americans are robbed of a fundamental right.
- End constitutional protection for abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
- Expand gun rights: New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v Bruen
- Imposed severe new constraints on the power of regulatory agencies: West Virginia v. EPA
- Reduce separation between church and state: Carson v. Makin and see the dessent in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance (Begin at the heading "Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join, dissenting.")
- Weakening prohibitions on voting practices that result in the “denial or abridgment” of the right to vote on account of race: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
- Severely weakening voting rights in 2013 by eliminating constraints on jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination: Shelby County v. Holder
- Weakening ...:
- The constitutionality of environmental protections of 45 million acres of land, and of water quality for millions of people
- The constitutionality of race-conscious college admissions programs
- The constitionality of controls to ensure that state legislative and congressional district lines are drawn fairly (primarily Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act)
- The constitionality of constraints on "religious liberties" and/or "gay rights," or simply when discrimination must be tolerated
- The constitionality of constraints on partisan gerrymandering (and a chance for the Far Right Supreme Court to implement the “independent state legislature theory,” and therefore the constitionality of legislative election subversion)
- Where to Obtain Supreme Court Opinions https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/obtainopinions.aspx
- For a far better and more complete review and analysis of recent and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court activities, see an essay by Ruth Marcus, "You thought the Supreme Court’s last term was bad? Brace yourself.." It was the initial resource for this page and the source of a number of quotes.