FILE PHOTO: A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices are expected to issue opinions on pending cases, in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 18, 2026. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate, argued four Supreme Court decisions handed down Tuesday debunked the long-standing myth.
In a new article, Stern concluded that the court does not rule along ideological lines. Each case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with GOP appointees in control.
He warned that the supermajority pursued expansive holdings that caused maximum damage to precedent, congressional authority, and civil liberties.
"What’s alarming about these decisions is not just the outcomes, but the fact that the supermajority went as far as it possibly could in each of them," Stern wrote.
The Court overturned a precedent that allowed people to sue corporations for human rights abuses and gutted laws that permitted individuals to seek damages for religious liberty violations.
Stern noted that no conservative justice has acted as a check on their colleagues' ambitions.
"All six went full steam ahead in tearing down the guardrails constructed by their more moderate Republican-appointed predecessors," Stern wrote.
"The problem is not merely that the court regularly divides 6–3; it’s that among those six, nobody seems inclined to serve as a check on the others’ most sweeping ambitions. With no more swing justices, the supermajority has no one left to pull it back from the brink."
Watch the video below.