We should start by dispensing with the pretense that this campaign against the conservative justices and the conservative legal movement is being waged in good faith or with genuine concern about ethics. It has instead been characterized by comically flimsy hit pieces, bad analogies that whitewash history, and dishonest character assassination. There is a long history of liberal and progressive judges finding implausible justifications to avoid recusal in hot-button cases, a history which continues into the biggest case of this term and is generally defended or ignored by legal commentators on the left. The institutional apparatus of universities, bar associations, journalism, and left-leaning foundations has long surrounded the justices with comfortable influences pulling them leftward, especially on social issues, and much of the current angst is about the breaking of that monopoly. You won’t find these same outlets investigating the liberal justices’ social circles or the deficiencies of their financial disclosures.
Nope. Plus: “The progressive objective, openly stated by a number of these groups, is to build support for Court-packing or similar efforts to either break centuries of precedent dictating how the Court is staffed or encourage the government to defy the Court’s rulings.”
All while bleating sanctimoniously about ethics and the rule of law.