A hearty "FUCK YOU" to anyone who helped bigots and fascists capture the Supreme Court.

[RandomNumbers]

9. Yes, but - read up on the "shadow docket" - it is NOT only about SC justice appointments

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-shadow-docket-comes-light

Emphasis added ... cherry picked paragraphs to stick to copyright rules. It is well worth reading the whole thing (which only has a few more paragraphs I had to snip out.)

Edit to clarify my point: the 2024 voters referenced in the OP are RESPONSIBLE in large part for the 2nd TSF administration, which has weaponized the SC in new ways. Some of the horrible decisions issued by this SC term may have been issued eventually anyway, but some quite possibly would never have made it to the SC without TSF administration submitting them.

The New York Times recently published a trove of Supreme Court memos that offer a rare glimpse into the internal workings of the Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docket. They lay bare how the Court has held the Trump administration to a far more deferential standard than its Democratic predecessors — and how the shadow docket has enabled the Court to avoid accountability.

The memos date to 2016, when a majority of justices voted to bypass the lower courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. At the time, it was an unprecedented use of the Court’s shadow docket. Also known as the emergency docket, the shadow docket refers to applications that seek action from the Supreme Court before the case is decided on the merits. Historically, its use was generally limited to procedural issues or requests to block serious, irreparable harms, such as a pending execution. But the Court’s use of the shadow docket shifted with the Court’s 2016 climate policy ruling, which skipped the normal litigation process in order to block a national policy.

Since then, the shadow docket’s use has exploded in both frequency and impact. The second Trump administration has filed a record number of shadow docket applications and has won 80 percent of the time. In the vast majority of these rulings, the Court has provided little or no reasoning for its decision.

... (snip) ...

Significantly, Roberts’s reasoning is also wholly inconsistent with how he and other conservative members of the Court have been assessing irreparable harm during the second Trump administration. Over the past year, the Court has repeatedly issued stays requested by the Trump administration where there was no apparent irreparable harm to the government, other than the generalized harm it faces from any delay in implementing a desired policy. For instance, the Court, through its shadow docket, allowed mass layoffs at the Education Department, racial profiling in immigration sweeps, and the termination of legal immigration status for hundreds of thousands of people.

... (snip) ...