Briefly Noted: Another 9-0 SCOTUS Case

This terms there has been a string of unanimous or near unanimous cases. Court watchers have noticed and speculate that a message is being sent. I won't discuss the merits of this case--there are plenty of competent lawyers who are doing that right now--but:

BREAKING: KAGAN Writes 9-0 Supreme Court Opinion Rejecting Liz Warren's Subversion of Immigration Law
PJ Media ^ | June 7, 2021 | Tyler O'Neil

On Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an illegal immigrant’s attempt to twist immigration law and create a loophole that would allow thousands of illegal immigrants to become lawful permanent residents. Democratic senators and attorneys general advocated for this loophole, but a liberal justice wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

What has become very obvious from this string of cases is that, if a message is being sent, that message is being sent to liberals and progs. Dems. What is that message?

This is strictly speculation, but is it possible that the liberal justices have come to the realization that decades of "living constitution" excesses have led much of the American ruling class to view the SCOTUS as no more than a convenient vehicle for enacting social transformation that would be difficult to enact by normal means? I know that's not a startling insight, but it just might be for the liberal justices, and especially because such a realization would hit them exactly where they live--in a co-equal and supposedly independent branch of a constitutional republic.

Such a realization--and I'm far from the first to suggest this--may have come about as a result of the various Court packing schemes the Dems have been floating. It's become increasingly clear that the prog agenda of the Zhou regime isn't going anywhere--at least not in Congress, thanks to Manchin and Sinema (and possibly a few more). Moreover, cases like this one make it appear increasingly likely that the regime's prog agenda may not be going very far by other (regulatory) means, either. It will certainly encourage challenges to prog interpretations of existing laws and regs.

If so, the message being sent could be a counterpart to the Roberts Strategy we've speculated about previously. Not only is the SCOTUS seeking to get out of the election law business to the extent possible, by laying down rulings (soon to come in the AZ case??) that encourage state legislatures to exercise their constitutional authority (as certain states are showing a will to do), but the liberal justices may be signaling a disinclination to remain in the social transformation business--Election 2020 may have awakened them to the dangers involved. Not least among those dangers would be the prospect of a constitutional demotion or degradation (even a defenestration) of the institution they inhabit--that is clearly part of the prog agenda.

This is, of course, speculation. Nor do I expect unanimity to continue indefinitely. I'm simply suggesting that the SCOTUS may have received a wake up call and may be trying to come to grips with realities that the liberal justices may not have anticipated. It's something to keep an eye on.