The New Yorker: Supreme Court exercising judicial activism.

This is something I've been complaining about for the last year, now.  The New Yorker has published a great piece on the specifics of how the Roberts court has been transformed into one of conservative judicial activism.

"The case (Citizens United), too, reflects the aggressive conservative judicial activism of the Roberts Court. It was once liberals who were associated with using the courts to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government, but the current Court has matched contempt for Congress with a disdain for many of the Court’s own precedents."

I'm surprised more media outlets haven't yet caught onto the actions of the current Supreme Court under Roberts.  So far, the Roberts court has been willing to throw out two long-standing (one was 90+ years old at the time) decisions.

If not for Republicans in control of the House of Representatives, I wonder if Democrats would have taken on Roberts for lying to Congress, with a full blown impeachment?

"At the argument of a death-penalty case known as Cone v. Bell, Roberts had berated at length the defendant’s lawyer, Thomas Goldstein, for his temerity in raising an issue that had not been addressed in the petition. Now Roberts was doing nearly the same thing to upset decades of settled expectations."

"Roberts, during his confirmation hearing, made much of his judicial modesty and his respect for precedent. If the Chief had written Citizens United, he would have been criticized for hypocrisy. But by giving the opinion to Kennedy he obtained a far-reaching result without leaving his own fingerprints."

He may not have written the majority opinion in Citizens United, but Roberts voted to overturn long-held precedence, repeatedly.

"In less than five years, the pair of Bush appointees (Alito and Roberts), joined by Scalia, Thomas, and, usually, Kennedy, had overturned many of the Court’s precedents."

Common sense has disappeared.