The supreme court is the top court of the land, wise beyond all other jurists, without bias, above the fray because they are appointed for life, beholden to nobody, and working tirelessly for the good of the people. One need only look at the history of the court to see that this view is naive to the point of believing in the tooth fairy. The supreme has historically been filled with flawed HUMANS who have biases and personal issues which color their decisions. While the past generations courts have been filled with flawed individuals, the current Roberts court has completely given up the pretense of impartiality and neutrality to become the personal lapdogs of big industry. Every single decision where the rights of corporations has been weighed against the rights of the people has turned out with the corporations on top with a 5-4 split. While I am not a neutral observer as I am biased against corporate interests, nobody with half a hemisphere firing in their brain can look at the court and say that the republican majority is impartial
I don't even know where to begin with the Republican side of the court. Justices Alito, and Roberts, are both conservative and thus will always fall in line with the conservative position but Justices Thomas and Scalia are completely beyond the normal spectrum of judicial appointees. Justice Kennedy is the deciding vote on the court and a wild card, straddling the fence on many issues. My view of the court is that there are two types of Justice, those who follow their belief and those who are prostitutes to the interests. While I disagree with the conservative views of Roberts, Alito, and much of the time Kennedy, I respect the differences of opinion and believe them to be honest actors. I have no right to say that the liberal view is the correct one and anybody who disagrees with it is immediately evil and must be corrupt (that would be the tea party and religious fundamentalists' viewpoint). On the other hand, the blatantly corrupt actions of Thomas ans Scalia are in my opinion completely inexcusable.
Justices Thomas and Scalia have sold their vote without shame and should be stripped of any power, then prosecuted for corruption. Justice Thomas openly accepted numerous gifts such as historical objects (Bible owned by Frederick Douglas, bust of Lincoln, etc.) from rich donors and then preceded to hear cases related to the interests of the donors. In addition to his gifts, Ginny Thomas runs a lobbying firm for extreme right wing causes and benefits directly from the decisions of her husband (Citizens United case). The actions of Justice Thomas and his wife are the very definition of bribery and would get any other federal judge tossed out on their ass at the very least; the only thing saving Thomas from being kicked out is the loophole that essentially exempts the Supreme court from all oversight.
The creators of the supreme court failed to see a fatal flaw in their design. In creating a court which operates above all others, they attempted to create a body which cannot be interfered with by outside influences. In theory, the court would be post-partisan and be able to rule based upon the law and conscience only. The Supreme Court exists in a neutral bubble, where no outside force can reach in and attack the Justices for their decisions, thus the court can effect issues such as civil rights without worry of electoral backlash. The one failure in this design is that the Justices are human and thus susceptible to bias and corruption. By having nobody above them, the Supreme Court falls into the trap of "Who watches the Watcher" and they have become increasingly corrupt.
Starting in the middle of the 20th century, there began a right wing push to stack the court with conservatives who will act in the interests of the right wing. While stacking the court is completely against the ideals of its formation, this is neither illegal nor unethical, but rather an effective way to affect public policy. While I abhor several of the decisions of the conservative court such as Citizen's United which give corporations unlimited power to effect elections and Thomson V. Louisiana where the court simply stripped a man of settlement money for being sent to death row for 14 years in a staged case, the most damaging decision by far was the Bush V. Gore case of 2001. As I have previously stated, the conservatives on the court don't think like liberals not making them immoral or wrong, merely different. I hold issue with the Bush V. Gore case because the case itself is simply wrong and immoral.
The Bush V. Gore case in 2001 decided the election in favor of Bush. Being a liberal, I dislike the policies of Bush, but even if the court had decided on the side of Gore, this case would be a massive breach of the constitution. The president of the United Stated is decided by the votes of the people expressed by the electoral college and the very fact that the court got to decide the winner of the election by a partisan vote is simply wrong. The 9 justices of the Supreme Court decided the election for Bush when they should have simply ordered a full recount of Florida, preserving the integrity of the election process. The fact that Gore actually won the election after the recount was over means that Bush was the first ever president of the USA who was not elected by either popular or representative vote. When his lack of election is taken into account with the great economic, social, civil, and international harm he caused, the entire issue becomes even more grotesque. All of the harm of the Bush administration could be laid at the feet of the 5 men who elected him president, but they will never feel blame for this because as always, they are SUPREME.