Liberal SCOTUS justices are 'desperately' trying to warn millions 'about an increasingly radical court'

According to an analysis of the recent dissents written following a string of highly controversial rulings by the conservative Supreme Court that have ranged from abortion to gun purchases to religion in public schools, it appears that the three stalwart liberals are attempting in simpler terms to warn the public about what is to come.

In a column for the Guardian, Joan E. Greve writes that the liberal justices are dispensing, in some part, with the legalese that can make opinions almost impenetrable to the average person, and instead are speaking to the public in a way that they can understand.

Using the effective overturning or Roe v. Wade, and the dissent that followed, Greve wrote, "...the three liberal justices repeatedly warn of the devastating impact of the end of Roe, while emphasizing that the majority’s ruling breaks with core tenets of court procedure."

Reflecting on the multiple dissents from the three liberals -- the recently retired Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- she added, "Taken together, the dissents written by the three liberal justices this term send a clear warning about an increasingly radical court that is abandoning long-held principles and even the facts of a case to enact an extreme conservative agenda in America."

IN OTHER NEWS: Jan. 6 Committee to reschedule prime time hearing after new information surfaces

She added that the writings feel like a "desperate attempt" to cut through the fog.

According to Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, "They are sounding an alarm – not just about a difference of judicial philosophy in a particular case, but about the radical attack on settled expectations and the ongoing legitimacy of the supreme court itself.”

Olatunde Johnson, a professor at Columbia Law School, cited the Dobbs abortion ruling dissent stating, "This is saying, not only is this violating the notion of rule of law and stability. It’s not just that I disagree with you; it’s that you are doing something out of the bounds of constitutional lawmaking and that it threatens the way we’re going to be seen by the larger public. That’s really strong language.”

You can read more here.