The Associated Press notes that it would have been a fateful Supreme Court term if the justices had ruled on just one of the three issues of abortions, guns, and religion. Instead, SCOTUS went 6-3 on all three and in the words of the AP, has signaled it has no plans to slow down.

This is one of those stories that would never have been written if the court had ruled the opposite way — that would have just been the natural course of things. But it’s “revolutionary” that SCOTUS is citing the Constitution to return power to the states.

Mark Sherman writes:

Abortion, guns and religion — a major change in the law in any one of these areas would have made for a fateful Supreme Court term. In its first full term together, the court’s conservative majority ruled in all three and issued other significant decisions limiting the government’s regulatory powers.

And it has signaled no plans to slow down.

With former President Donald Trump’s appointees in their 50s, the six-justice conservative majority seems poised to keep control of the court for years to come, if not decades.

“This has been a revolutionary term in so many respects,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas. “The court has massively changed constitutional law in really big ways.”

Overturning Roe v. Wade and ending a nearly half-century guarantee of abortion rights had the most immediate impact, shutting down or severely restricting abortions in roughly a dozen states within days of the decision.

In expanding gun rights and finding religious discrimination in two cases, the justices also made it harder to sustain gun control laws and lowered barriers to religion in public life.

Yeah, it was a good couple of weeks.

Of course the AP found a professor from Berkely to provide her expert opinion. “I find it to be incredibly disingenuous for Alito to suggest that all that Dobbs is doing is returning this question to the states and that people can battle in the state about whether to protect fetal life or the interest of the pregnant person,” [Khiara] Bridges said. “But that same court is actively involved in insuring that states can disenfranchise people.”

Yeah, shut up.

Related: