It made sense to declare that it lacks standing, but this case shouldn't even have been before the court - imagine if you could just say "Oh, I decided Jim Smit

It made sense to declare that it lacks standing, but this case shouldn't even have been before the court - imagine if you could just say "Oh, I decided Jim Smith owes me a billion dollars" with no justification and somehow the US Supreme Court thinks they need to hear that to see if they should intervene, rather than tell you to fuck off. The court never needed to even hear this, increasingly a GOP-controlled court wants to take every opportunity to see if there's some sliver of a reason why they can meddle in the business of other government entities, and isn't interested in boring minutiae of actual legal decisions. A hundred years ago, a season of US Supreme Court decisions might have one political hot potato and most of the rest of its work is boring technical decisions which are building a sophisticated legal framework that can be used in lower courts to explain how things need to work. This is useful (but not very exciting) work, well suited to an actual independent final court with more than ten very knowledgeable judges and nothing else to fill their days. My favourite example from the UK's Supreme Court, they decided what sort of crime could possibly deserve a punishment of imprisonment without possibility of parole - they decided it should be multiple distinct murders, such as if you were a serial killer or you killed somebody and then when you were paroled for that you decided to kill the people who caught you the first time as well. But today the US Supreme Court barely finds any time for such things, those don't generate "buzz" and get you another free luxury vacation from a "close friend" who didn't know you until you mattered. Now it's "Can we find an excuse to fuck with Biden?" and "Is there a way to give my 'friend' what he wants?" with the result that of course the general public increasingly no longer see the Rule Of Law as a good thing in the US. I have a feeling that a good number of the present US Supreme Court, maybe even a majority, would have William Roper's side of the argument in "A Man For All Seasons". Roper argues that "I'd cut down every law in England to [catch the devil]" and More asks what he'd do when the Devil turns on him, as would inevitably happen, where would he hide, with no law?