Sherrilyn Ifill suggests that Justice Alito embarrassed himself on the bench earlier this month in his disregard of well-established policies and practices of judicial procedure and, further, that the Supreme Court’s majority “has elevated its own outcome-focused agenda over adherence to an established and consistently applied set of litigation rules.”
She concludes a commentary worth reading in full with these words:
Our entire profession should be concerned about the court’s increasingly cavalier treatment of the rules and long-standing practices that allow lawyers to effectively develop litigation strategy and anticipate outcomes, whether they are beneficiaries of the court’s excesses or not. The very concept of the rule of law is premised on an expectation of stability and consistency in how law is practiced, not just what laws will be applied and to whom.
We have yet to see what the court will do with the Skrmetti case. But if recent cases, and the oral argument, are anything to judge by, at least some of the conservative justices seem prepared to get to the outcome they have decided by any means necessary. More and more, the conservative majority’s approach has put the rules and norms that govern our system of litigation in the crosshairs as much as the substantive rights of marginalized groups.
The Republican majority on the high court has long since become intent on advancing the interests of the contemporary Republican Party. Ifill’s observations are just the latest data point confirming an off the rails court.
