I think there are three components here: - There is a partisan component when democrats criticize the effect of cases like Dobbs, Janus, and Trump v. USA. This

I think there are three components here: - There is a partisan component when democrats criticize the effect of cases like Dobbs, Janus, and Trump v. USA. This definitely exists. - There is definitely a legal interpretation component. I heard some good analysis on legal interpretation on NPR around the Chevron deference when Loper v. Raimondo happened. They had on law professors, federal lawyers, and even one of the lawyers who argued the original Chevron case. There was a lot of content educating people on the history of Chevron deference, what it means, and what the new ruling might mean for regulators in the future. I've also seen a lot of discussion poking holes in the unitary executive theory (on the left) and justifying it (on the right). You sometimes have to dig to find this - long discussions on legal theory don't exactly make for compelling media. - Finally, there is a "corruption on the SCOTUS" component. I would argue that the timing here is partisan, but the material is not. The conflicts of interest documented are factual, and the calls to adopt a code of ethics should have been a nonpartisan issue. Personally, I believe that the GOP learned the wrong lesson from the Nixon impeachment and Bork nomination and has adopted a more doveish stance on balancing political power versus corruption within their party, and the partisan lean of the SCOTUS scandals is a consequence of this.