With the death of Bader-Ginsberg, the court enters what looks to be an era of a strong "conservative" majority. I put quotes around conservative because though they cloak their agenda in that ideological pretence, the justices of the majority have proven themselves all too willing to overturn and strike out in new directions if that's what is needed to push their views onto the nation.
The progressive elements of US society are minimally and I'd say often grudgingly represented by the Democratic Party. The Democrats have shown that they're incapable of effectively thwarting the Republicans' march toward a Christofascist* government. The idea of an expanded court which could more faithfully reflect the relation between the US Constitution and the people of the US is almost certain to remain in the realm of fancy. The Democrats don't have the gumption to do anything like that, if recent history is a reliable indicator.
*Yeah, I'm willing to call it that. The Republicans may never realize the dystopian wetdreams of David Barton and his creepy ilk, but the combination of authoritarianism and ascendant repressive evangelical Christianity is unequivocally the current Republican Party brand, aside from their standard overt obeisance to the cupidity of corporations and the well-heeled.
The US Supreme Court has directly meddled in the political realm, including choosing a president only a couple of decades ago, and is likely to do so in the future, maybe in the very near future. This thread provides a place to discuss that and other important developments. For this post: It appears the likely new justice will work tirelessly to advance an agenda that will please the Christofascists.
'Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Has A Problem With The Constitution'
In [Barrett's] record as clerk, law professor and judge, there is evidence of ... a tendency to view the Bill of Rights as anything but generous for life choices. ...
Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw the Bill of Rights and civil rights acts as generous guarantees of human dignity that must be read expansively to achieve their purpose. By contrast, Barrett’s view of the law is fundamentally cruel. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett either has written or joined a remarkable number of opinions that harm unpopular and powerless individuals who rely on the judiciary to safeguard their rights.
“Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.”
Per her record, if the case is about religion or guns, Barrett is for the individual; if it is about abortion or gender, Barrett seems to forget about the individual.