If that's your argument, then surely the proper approach is to criticize the Court for those instances where their logic isn't consistent, instead of when the logic is consistent. For example, Thomas vigorously dissented in Gonzales v. Raich, where Scalia voted to uphold federal marijuana restrictions as a proper exercise of the Commerce power.
There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that agenda rests on legal doctrine and philosophy, and not "outcomes."
I think the argument is that there are multiple judicial philosophies that can be chosen from, and you can generally predict what outcomes will result from following a philosophy consistently over time, so a justice chooses the philosophy that results in the outcomes they want. And therefore they could have chosen their philosophy for partisan outcome-based reasons, so consistently following it is no defense to accusations of partisanship.
Suppose I’m a pro lifer for reasons I’m ashamed of. The supreme court strikes down roe v wade, and I’m secretly pleased, but can’t admit it. Wouldn’t it be nice to defend the decision by arguing about its consistency?
It’s a red herring in these discussions because it’s not the true reason people support it.
You don't know anyone's true reason for anything. Your specific example of abortion is a ridiculously complex topic (hence the total disagreement in society), so simplifying it to basically "the other side is secretly lying" seems unfair and uncharitable.
I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitimate reason to argue about it? How do you know what the "true" reason is?
It would be nice if you at least kept up the appearance of polite discussion.
Faux "quotations" make you look much worse than your nemesis. Projecting invented intentions is not okay, either. Not to speak of clearly breaking the site's guidelines.
What is this “right” to an abortion and who decided it exists?
It’s worth noting that the EU Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to recognize a “right” to abortion under the EU Convention on Human Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland
There’s no right to an abortion in most of Europe. Legislatures allow abortion to varying degrees, but it’s seen as a matter of legislation, not “rights.”
So I’m a card carrying Fed Soc member. While I’m uncomfortable with legalized second trimester abortion (because at that point the fetus looks like a baby) I don’t think abortion should be banned altogether. But I still think Roe was wrongly decided and properly overturned. I’d estimate that half or more of Fed Soc supports some degree of legalized abortion, but virtually all think Roe was wrongly decided. The idea that it’s all pretext is laughable.
By the way, I think liberals also believe what they say. It’s just that they believe that judges should be cultured elites sitting on a throne telling the rabble how to structure their society.
There is nothing wrong with judges having an "agenda" as long as that agenda rests on legal doctrine and philosophy, and not "outcomes."