Eric Segall tells us what he really thinks about the Roberts court

Law professor Eric Segall is a leading critic of the Supreme Court.  In a blog post today, he doesn’t pull any punches:

The disaster that was the Trump v. United States oral argument reminded me of how little the Roberts Court has actually cared about rule of law values and legal transparency during its 18-year run. Leaving aside the overturning or narrowing of numerous landmark cases from abortion to affirmative action to the free exercise of religion, the Roberts Court has consistently, in the Court’s most important and publicized opinions, engaged in subterfuge, sleight of hand, and even outright lying. 

In this post, I discuss landmark cases involving affirmative action, health care, voting rights, separation of church and state, and the Second Amendment to show, not that I disagree with the results (I do), but instead to demonstrate that no matter what side of the issues you may favor in these country-defining cases, the Roberts Court has resolved these questions in a lawless manner because of reliance on demonstrably false facts and obviously misleading descriptions of prior rulings and other legal materials. In short, the Roberts Court has acted lawlessly from the beginning.

He concludes:

This type of misleading decision-making occurs all-too-often in the Roberts Court. This blog post, along with a few published law review articles, is the beginning of a book-length project that will show that, regardless of how one feels about the results reached by the Roberts Court, its method of deciding cases has been to reject rule of law values like consistency, transparency, and simple truth-telling. The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most, if not the most, lawless courts in American history.