Supreme Court Decisions Are About the Means, Not the Ends
The Supreme Court isn't supposed to legislate or make policy. At its worst, it does just that. And then the rule of law is replaced with the rule of nine judges seeking to achieve particular ends.
Biden v. Texas and West Virginia v. EPA both followed the law. They infuriated conservatives and leftists, immigration hawks and environmental obsessives respectively. But the Supreme Court did what it was supposed to, limiting the power of unelected officials, of judges and bureaucrats.
That is what putting the law and means ahead of policy and ends means.
As much as the country needs Remain in Mexico, judges should not be using the Administrative Procedure Act to keep in place policies from a previous administration. The problem is that judges, and even the Supreme Court, repeatedly did just that under Trump using the APA. Using the APA to retain some border protections with states citing impact was payback. But the Supreme Court was right to toss it aside. The much bigger problem is that the DREAM amnesty and forcing administrations to maintain it has not been tossed aside. And the Obama and Biden administrations both got away with selectively enforcing immigration law so as to create de facto amnesty.
The Democrats are happy with the Biden v. Texas ruling, but they would be furious if it were say Trump v. California because it's not about the rule of law.
And so celebrations over Biden v. Texas were overshadowed by raving fury over West Virginia v. EPA.
"Supreme Court Rules 6-3 That the Planet Should Burn," Rolling Stone headlined its clickbait.
But that's exactly the point. The Supreme Court doesn't rule on what the planet should do (as if any earthly court could) only on what powers government has.