quote:

For the first time in his nearly 16 years on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has filed a solo dissent. In it, he bluntly accused his colleagues of a "radical expansion" of the court's jurisdiction.

quote:

"The court sees no problem with turning judges into advice columnists," Roberts wrote.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08...lumnists?ft=nprml&f=

As I understand it, the situation is the case was decided, but since they won the plaintiffs want the chance to go back for more money? Why else would they want to continue a case they already won?

I read it differently (but certainly not saying I'm right): Your question was at the core of Roberts' dissent. The plaintiffs won everything they wanted, and to keep the case open had no material benefit. But the plaintiffs wanted to make a point with their demand for $1 in nominal damages. Roberts basically said "SCOTUS is no place for these petty disagreements over the final $1 of a case when you've already been made whole."

I tend to agree with him, and am waiting for a more knowledgeable person to set me right.

Scotusblog's analysis.

https://www.scotusblog.com/202...n-at-public-college/

Roberts presided as the court went in to a steep decline. He may continue to preside over the court in its present state of disrepute and mediocrity but no one says he has to.

He’a made a big mess and he knows it. Like so many Republicans he’s brought it upon himself. $2 says he’s figured that out.

If he has any class he’ll soon retire in disgrace.

The same could be said for a few of them.