U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

Have at it.

I nominate AOC

i nominate tom cotton, a good guy with a gun

get in here, goons

Can Trump nominate himself?

and continuing the SCOTUS term limit discussion, reposting the explainer
https://fixthecourt.com/2019/11/myth-facts-scotus-term-limits/

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/09/ted-cruz-supreme-court-donald-trump/

No idea if these proposed changes are ideal or if they could ever plausibly come to pass, but I like that they are being put out there. It's a good step to start getting people used to the idea of major changes to the court.

Bryant Johnson, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s personal trainer, does push-ups as Justice Ginsburg lies in state in the U.S. Capitol.

Full video: https://t.co/vri1sJcUV6 pic.twitter.com/C11uVFeQlQ

— CSPAN (@cspan) September 25, 2020

He isn’t stupid so wtf is he thinking https://t.co/uyEcGDZRIy

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) September 25, 2020

I'm very sorry but if the pushup video is real it's extremely funny

CNN reporting that it's Barrett:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/25/politics/donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court/index.html

South Bend is really knocking it out of the park this year.

Whoever Trump was going to pick was going to be a horror story, so I expect soon to be reading about the many horrors of Ms. Barrett, which no doubt will be many and hair-raising. Lindsey Graham will love her.

democrats will have grave concerns and strongly worded appeals to decency

democratic fundraising will go through the roof, blood will boil, the election will be won (eventually) by democrats. and at the end, it'll be a 6-3 conservative court for the forseeable future, and possible a 5-4 majority for another 20-30 years, unless the golden boy or gorsuch unexpectedly croak, which would be a tragedy

those are impressive lifespans you're projecting for thomas and alito imo

They get magic life drugs injected in their butts

haha, well it also builds in known unknowns, like republicans preserving a seat in a future GOP presidency. let's role play it

2020 (the present. you are in hell)
barrett is confirmed before election. fuck you liberals
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 65
thomas is 72
alito is 70
gorsuch is 53
the golden boy is 55
barrett is 48

breyer is 82
sotomayor is 66
kagan is 60

2021 (biden is elected. you are in tartarus)
biden wins. breyer tags out for a younger replacement. i will create SC justice names using this thread Fighting Baseball for Super Famicom: A League of Fake Americans POLL
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 66
thomas is 73
alito is 71
gorsuch is 54
the golden boy is 56
barrett is 49

sotomayor is 67
kagan is 61
willie dustice is 50

EVENT
2024 election. The democrat has a 70% chance of victory (same as clinton v trump), due to me running this simulation. RNG: no joke, i rolled a random number from 1 to 10, with 1-7 being democratic victory and 8-10 being republican, and i rolled an 8. REPUBLICANS WIN

2025 (tom cotton is the president of the united states. you have killed 2 people now and haven't talked in weeks.)
tom cotton casts Executive Righteousness on thomas, 77 years old, who is replaced by Sleve McDichael
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 70
alito is 75
the golden boy is 60
barrett is 53
sleve mcdichael is 50

sotomayor is 71
kagan is 65
gorsuch is 58
willie dustice is 54

EVENT
World War III, totally started by tom cotton. 2028 election. The democrat has a 80% chance of victory, due to me running this simulation. RNG: 3, democratic victory

2029 (first influencers on mars)
AOC is the president of the united states of america, fuck yeah. sotomayor, the second oldest justice at 75, taps out. bobsun dugnutt is the new junior united states supreme court justice.
6-3 conservative majority

roberts is 74
alito is 79
gorsuch is 62
the golden boy is 64
barrett is 57
sleve mcdichael is 54

kagan is 69
willie dustice is 58
bobsun dognutt is 50

EVENT
in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

2031 (VR sex surpasses videogames in revenue generation)
brett kavanaugh fucking dies out of nowhere, best thing that's happened in a generation. president AOC appoints a justice so left-leaning that she's impeached by sergeant ivanka trump, leader of the paramilitary republican subcommittee known as Gold Team. Onson Sweemey, the first justice with a normal name in 11 years, takes the golden boy's spot and shifts the balance toward a near-balance.

5-4 conservative majority

roberts is 76
alito is 81
gorsuch is 64
barrett is 59
sleve mcdichael is 56

kagan is 71
willie dustice is 60
bobsun dognutt is 52
onson sweemey is 50

EVENT
2032 Election. there's no more random numbers, it's just me making it up. the democrats win again. AOC is on the wheaties box.

then, near the end of her second term, the unspeakable happens. Samuel Alito, at the age of 85, just fucking dies out of nowhere.
2035
some observers expect the krang-like brain of mitch mcconnell to somehow delay a democratic confirmation in his spot, but AOC casts total victory and again appoints an extremely-left greatest of time justice named Todd Bonzalez.
5-4 liberal majority

roberts is 80
gorsuch is 68
barrett is 63
sleve mcdichael is 60

kagan is 75
willie dustice is 64
bobsun dognutt is 56
onson sweemey is 54
todd bonzalez is 50

EVENT
2036 Election. it's been 8 years of supreme relaxation and greatness. even gum is genuinely _better_. everything's great. something has to change, so somehow it's time for PRESIDENT CHARLIE KIRK

2037
under PRESIDENT CHARLIE KIRK, roberts immediately resigns. the new chief justice of the united states is SCOTT DOURQUE, 50 years old, catholic conservative
5-4 liberal majority

chief justice scott dourque, 50
gorsuch is 70
barrett is 65
sleve mcdichael is 62

kagan is 77
willie dustice is 66
bobsun dognutt is 58
onson sweemey is 56
todd bonzalez is 52

I actually think that’s not a terrible way of gaming things out. The arc of the moral universe is long. We fight the fights that we have today, and we train our young folks. Good post KM.

DOGNUTT

https://res.cloudinary.com/teepublic/image/private/s--QTcxwhPT--/t_Preview/b_rgb:ffffff,c_limit,f_jpg,h_630,q_90,w_630/v1495739359/production/designs/1624926_1.jpg

in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

whoa how did he die?!

Shot by one of Dick Cheney's grandkids

Karl, that was perfect (ly horrifying).

Shot by one of Dick Cheney's grandkids

― LaRusso Auto (Neanderthal), Friday, September 25, 2020 6:49 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

At a UB40 reunion concert

in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM

whoa how did he die?!

he dies of doing a kegstand in the kitchen of amy klobuchar's wake

karl this is some excellent scenario running and first rate use of the Fighting Baseball thread and i applaud it

i have a rejoinder percolating but it may take a while to get around to crunching the hard numbers so i just wanted to say that for now

_in 2031, the golden boy brett kavanaugh, just 66 years old, FUCKING DIES OUT OF NOWHERE and it's REALLY EMBARRASSING FOR HIM_

whoa how did he die?!

xp thanks doctor c! your questioning of that was really valid, and i don't think my answer is any sort of proof of anything. i got lazy and didn't project it out to 2045 (my original goal), but even though i ended with a slim 5-4 liberal majority by 2037, i don't think it takes much to keep it at a 5-4 conservative majority either. then again, maybe the republicans will truly never win again (lol) and it will be 6-3 liberal by 2040, who knows

So we get 40 some years of this...from an article Barrett co-wrote as quoted by SCOTUS blog

The article also noted that, when the late Justice William Brennan was asked about potential conflict between his Catholic faith and his duties as a justice, he responded that he would be governed by “the oath I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States”; Barrett and Garvey observed that they did not “defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/

Can't wait for her book, "Jesus is the Speaker of MY House"

@ Karl - okay! you've already gotten there, but yeah basically my rejoinder would be that you didn't actually end up showing "a 6-3 conservative court for the forseeable future, and possible a 5-4 majority for another 20-30 years." but the scenario was worth it anyway. a quibble: you don't game out the Senate, which i respect because that would be even more absurd fanfic work, but it's worth allowing at least dice-roll possibilities that the Dems control the Senate during your Republican admins, AND that they stand firm against prematurely ghoulish ideologues like Sleve McDichael, whose pasty-faced appearance and hot-mic comments during the nominations process turn the public against him. i would not put money on that chance myself, but it's at least possible.

also though, a fair bit hinges on that first d10 roll and some choices about the EVENTS - suppose Biden rolls a 6 in 2024, and is re-elected to a foggy but popular second term, his "Reagan in the late 80s" zone, AND ALSO that during that term, Thomas has a health scare and decides to retire. i don't know that the odds are so heavily stacked against something like that.

obviously in that event, Biden's replacement pick would be the mushy, not-all-that liberal Rey McSriff (48), a former bank-industry lobbyist, seen as a move back in the direction of racial and gender diversity on the court who will at least be a reliable liberal vote in civil-rights and abortion cases.

so in january 2029, we've got:

roberts is 74
alito is 79
gorsuch is 62
the golden boy is 64
barrett is 57

kagan is 69
willie dustice is 58
bobsun dognutt is 50
rey mcsriff is 50

eight years of the biden administration have left many festering wounds unaddressed, but thankfully the republican "gold team" have been mostly braying in the margins without control of either congress or the executive to formally empower them. on the other hand, in the absence of the Cotton presidency, World War III has not happened, but let's say AOC wins in 2028 anyway. why not?!

thus, following B.K.'s horrible death in 2031, AOC's super left-wing appointee is able to remain in office. you didn't name them but it's pretty obvious you had Shown Furcotte in mind. maybe kagan is worried enough about the next election, and spooked by what is by then a Sunday-morning-show conventional wisdom about "the Tragedy of Ginsburg," that she retires too. by this point AOC is not fucking around at all and appoints millennial twitter SJW Raul Chamgerlain, 44. if AOC goes on to win a second term and also grabs the Alito seat, then in 2035 we have:

roberts is 80
gorsuch is 68
barrett is 63

raul chamgerlain is 49
willie dustice is 64
bobsun dognutt is 56
rey mcscriff is 56
shown furcotte is 53
todd bonzalez is 50

... and our biggest problem is that sometimes McSriff aligns with the conservatives to dissent in 5-4 corporate-law decisions, and we see a lot of online left grousing about how Biden wasted a pick on her.

now yes, i admit........... this depends on the democrats winning four straight national elections. IMPOSSIBLE you say? or merely... improbable???! depends how much faith you put in changing demographics etc. but if none of the Dem-appointed justices die in office, they can also afford to lose one of those elections! because it might be that the Republicans can only replace Thomas or Alito with McDichael or Dorque, giving them an edge in age but not a leg up in the balance of the court.

todd bonzalez makes history as the first male latino justice

is there a relevant quote linking Barrett's sect to The Handmaid's Tale?

there must be. ominous lord, truth is stranger than fiction

xp

doc casino, first of all, obviously i had Shown Furcotte in mind. but secondly, the rest of your scenario seems plausible!

obviously gaming it out like that is a goof, but i did actually learn a few things. or maybe not. i feel like just laying out their ages, combined with the fact that they have lifetime appointments, explains 99% of the game:

christmas near-future:

roberts is 65
thomas is 72
alito is 70
gorsuch is 53
the golden boy is 55
barrett is 48

breyer is 82
sotomayor is 66
kagan is 60

that there is a stacked deck, combined with republican weakness (in terms of what we might expect, possibly overoptimistically, from their presidential chances for the next few decades after elevating a white supremacist fascist to the presidency and then ripping the country to shreds in an attempt to keep him there). even with a couple 2-term democratic administrations in a row, through 2036, there is still a decent chance that at least 5 or even all 6 of the conservative majority stays right where they are, their ass-molds worn deep

in unrelated news, just before i fell asleep face down on the couch last night, i ran across a disturbing headline about increasing the maximum human lifespans beyond its current soft limit of 125. apparently the consensus is that it will soon (10 years?) be possible to extend human lifespans using genetic modifiers, physical devices, and secret codes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension jfc

agreed, it's a useful exercise to grasp exactly how much the age advantage of the GWB and DJT appointees presses on into the future. but also, focusing too much on that just takes us into a zone of gloom, so unless it's directly useful for motivating present-day action and the long-term fight, i think it's also useful to bear in mind all the ways that the scenario could suddenly break down. nobody saw Scalia's death coming, for example, even though he was 79. that ended up working out horribly for the cause of justice and freedom, but it could have gone differently. so long as our rights are subject to these bizarre matters of fate and circumstance, we may as well remind ourselves that there are ways the probabilistic parts could break our way.

and the stacked deck there does look better the moment Biden can replace Breyer, which i think we all do need to be praying for (or whatever equivalent practice).

and... all these scenarios also presume a successful barrett confirmation. tbh, i'm pretty doom-and-gloom about that, seems like there's no reason to think it won't happen. but it's still probably not good for my head to already accept her as a solid number until 2049 or w/e. like if i'm driving myself crazy with all the bad things that have already happened, and the ones that could probably happen, and the ones that are near-certainties, that's a lot to do to my head, if i'm not also considering the good equivalents of all of those things.

there's also some non-zero chance that, in the event that a Democrat wins the presidential race four times in a row and this permanent 5-4 Court keeps shutting down every exciting thing the people are turning out to vote for, then a mandate for court-packing develops much much more quickly than we might expect right now.

so long as our rights are subject to these bizarre matters of fate and circumstance, we may as well remind ourselves that there are ways the probabilistic parts could break our way.

otm

i know that's not a convincing or comforting thought for everyone, but to me that really is what gives me hope

NEW: Senate Democrats say they will press President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee to commit to recuse herself if the justices hear a case that could impact the outcome of the fall elections, @mkraju reports.

— Ana Cabrera (@AnaCabrera) September 25, 2020

That seems a little dumb

I mean it makes sense but they'd still have a 5-3 advantage anyway

"Will you commit to not doing the exact thing you were hired for" is a dumb question

and... all these scenarios also presume a successful barrett confirmation. tbh, i'm pretty doom-and-gloom about that, seems like there's no reason to think it won't happen

i will continue to return to my dumb "we simulate the future and then experience it in real time, somehow diminished, as something that was already familiar" theory, until someone or something convinces me that it's not accurate. in that line of thinking, you can already see the barrett confirmation and how it happens. i already saw a headline, last night, talking about how barrett was confirmed in October. i looked at the calendar and it was september 25th, then re-read the headline and it still said that she was confirmed in October, past tense. i can't remember where i saw it, and i had a socially distanced hangout with a friend last night and got way too drunk. but still, it was there all the same.

that was just a drunken horror, but i woke up today and it's still there. the republicans have the votes. 2 have been allowed to deviate (murkowski and collins), which just so happens to allow exactly enough remaining republicans to unilaterally install barrett. what a coincidence. this outcome has already been focus-grouped on a national scale - it turns out that most republicans think it's a great idea, most democrats think it's a bad idea, and the majority of "independents" think it's a bad idea. it sounds like most ideas these days. so they'll do it, because they can.

we're currently simulating the outraged response, right now. at least, i am. and then, when it happens, it won't be the first time.

---

^i think all of that is a very bad way to go about thinking about life, believe it or not. but that's what i see happening over and over, lately.

xpost they're not asking her to not be a justice, they're saying 'Hey, you were literally just nominated by one of the President candidates in this election 5 minutes before the election, maybe it's a conflict of interest for you ruling on a case challenging his results".

But this is the primary reason they are in such a rush. If she can't guarantee to hand over the election, it's pointless for Trump. Surely he already told her she needs to deliver that vote, or there would be a different pick.

lol of course it's not going to actually happen but would you rather the Democrats not try it first so that they can frame it as "Justice Coney Barrett refused to recuse, she and Trump win, while Americans lose!"

I mean, compared to other things they should be trying, this is VERY low on my list of importance and I wouldn't want it to take the place of promising to pack the fuck out of courts, but we're kinda fucked unless someone has a McCain surprise during the vote.

It's fucked up to seeing the Chicago judge about to hand Donald's defense team an epic slap down knowing there's a shadow docket already being written to overrule the judgment.

― (•̪●) (carne asada), Thursday, October 9, 2025 11:06 AM (four hours ago)

as cynical and pessimistic as it seems I do think this is the right way to look at this. lower court rulings are important in the sense that they are the fact-gathering actors here, and their rulings should mean something, but this current supreme court has shown time and time again that they will simply side with the president

Sooner or later, and probably sooner, SCOTUS is just going to say that Posse Comitatus ain't worth shit if the president declares an emergency, and he can do with the troops whatever he wants. That's pretty much a given imo. I'll be happy and surprised to be proved wrong, but the laws don't define what constitutes an emergency or an insurrection, and this SCOTUS will not set those boundaries as long as it's a Republican president.

The only way we're ever going to get fences around executive overreach restored with this court is to elect another Democrat, when they will suddenly rediscover the separation of powers.

is there any possibility they would take this up?

_Rightwing conspiracy fabulist Alex Jones has petitioned the US supreme court to block a massive defamation judgment imposed after he argued that the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in which 20 children and six adults were killed was a hoax.

In a filing to the US high court, Jones asked the justices to act immediately to prevent his website InfoWars from being handed over to the satirical news site The Onion._

I don’t think he’s their kind of right wing whakadoo. Now if it was Ben Shapiro…

I guess they're meeting tomorrow to discuss the merits

I guess I just wonder how one gets access to a SCOTUS appeal; can I contest traffic tickets? I mean, this was a civil judgement, seems kinda outside their purview

Chris Law Dork Geidner has a Bluesky post about Coney Barrett appearing on Fox and giving same bs answer about emergency docket decisions and not being challenged on it .

Not this time:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-turns-away-alex-jones-attempt-block-huge-defamation-judg-rcna236968

Hearing going on now live

The dispute centers on whether Louisiana lawmakers violated the Constitution when they adopted a new electoral map in 2024, creating the state’s second majority-Black district. If the justices decide that lawmakers cannot consider race in drafting maps, redistricting could follow. Those changes could allow Republican state legislatures to eliminate at least a dozen Democratic-held House districts across the South.

During the argument, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested that aspects of the 60-year-old Voting Rights Act might have an implicit sunset date. He is part of the court’s conservative supermajority and could be a key vote in the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6Ea2CTXK7E

Link is to audio of the hearing

I don't think we need to listen to this hearing to figure out what is going to happen here.

Justice Kavanaugh, sir, may I suggest that voting rights do not, in your words, "sunset", but are perpetual and inviolable.

Justice, these maps are just created for political reasons not racial reasons says counsel for Republicans ignoring history of US

Barrett - you’re suggesting a 40 years old case is wrong , can’t we just say we’re “clarifying “ it instead

Ugh. She’s evil

K Jackson quotes historians who explained that because of slavery and Jim Crow , people still live in certain areas and do not have equal rights

but that was before Trump made Woke illegal

they trying to let pigs enter our homes whenever they feel like it now?

Elie Mystal wrote this advance re today's case-

Louisiana has six congressional districts and is around 30 percent Black and Hispanic. White legislators tried to pack as many Black and brown people as possible into a single congressional district, allowing whites to dominate the other five. Courts forced Louisiana to draw a second majority-minority district. Under a straight application of the just-decided Milligan precedent, this case should be over. But it’s not, because the Supreme Court does not want non-white people to have fair representation in government.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-term-worst-cases/

https://i.imgur.com/82hiZRY.jpeg

Coming to the shadow docket- Trump seeks right to put National Guard in Illinois despite lower court rulings and Illinois not wanting them and the California case ruling against them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/10/17/supreme-court-trump-illinois-/

gee I wonder how they’ll rule

It's rather amazing to me that conservatives in both Congress and the SCOTUS appear very happy to destroy their own legitimate power in order to hand over unlimited & unchecked power to a man they secretly despise as a fool. And it's all because they hate the idea of paying taxes to provide social services to the poor, while treating them as equally worthy humans. It's like they are blind to how easily Trump could drag them under the bus, too.

Is SCOTUS afraid to rule against him on a lot of these because they don’t know what the hell they’ll do when he ignores their rulings?

Both Congress and the Supreme Court see Trump as a useful puppet to enact their will with zero accountability. He creates the fascist state of their dreams while keeping them from ever getting their hands dirty. The SC isn't afraid of ruling against him, they are delighted to have him do what he wants without them ever needing to lift a finger.

Yeah o

Probably more like it

Sure they think he's a puppet. But a puppet with unlimited dictatorial power who is also a criminal, a liar, a greedy narcissist, and requires absolute unquestioning fealty to his person is not as easy to box in as they seem to think he is. If they try, he'll just find more compliant stooges to replace them.

Is SCOTUS afraid to rule against him on a lot of these because they don’t know what the hell they’ll do when he ignores their rulings?

― (•̪●) (carne asada),

SCOTUS won't rule against him because the Sinister Six are aligned with him, especially Roberts on voting rights elimination.

it is strange that they're referred to a 'conservative' judges when they're anything but

It's a return to the Fuller Court of the 1890s and 1900s.

His power is unlimited largely due to decisions made by the Supreme Court, not despite them.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the president to remove the government’s top copyright official after a lower court allowed her to remain in her post that is part of the Library of Congress.

President Trump ordered the removal in May of Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights, along with the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who did not challenge her dismissal.

Here we go again likely

NY Times on Kagan v Jackson approach to dissents and trying to lessen damage or win over conservative justices and when to just win over the public by telling things the way they are

Justice Kagan’s approach goes like this: Even on a 6-to-3 court, the Democratic appointees can sometimes strategize their way into narrower rulings, smaller losses or even outright victory. To do so, the liberals must generally sway the chief justice and Justice Barrett. Admirers of Justice Kagan say she is prudent to show restraint, displaying her frustration only in flashes. Justice Jackson’s outspokenness could risk those votes, or further erode faith in a court that may yet stand up to Mr. Trump, they say.

Justice Jackson, on the other hand, is aiming for an audience beyond the court, speaking to the public and history. Her proponents argue that Justice Kagan is the one taking risks — of missing the moment and lending cover to a court that is weakening democratic norms.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/us/politics/supreme-court-kagan-jackson-liberal-justices.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk8.RLLF.sR-0CRKY7R6q&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Jackson otm

Stern of Slate website on Bluesky regarding 2nd case oral argument today-

Brett Kavanaugh's behavior during today's second oral arguments has been incredibly obnoxious and rude. He is so eager to kill a service member's lawsuit against a negligent government contractor that he keeps interrupting other justices, raising his voice, and getting emotional. Weird and erratic.

I googled and see Kavanaugh does have a long history of protecting military contractors for the Pentagon from lawsuits saying that they are immune just like the federal government often is. But getting all emotional about it seems more like his rants at his Senate hearing to become a Supreme Court judge

he likes beer

exactly

Good news.

Mark Joseph Stern
If I had to guess right now (and it is premature!) I'd say the Supreme Court is going to strike down Trump's tariffs.

All three liberals are clearly against the government. Barrett too. Roberts leaning that way. And we haven't even gotten to tax-hater Gorsuch yet.

ha was just coming to post that very same thing

Nov. 5, 2025, 10:34 a.m. ET6 minutes ago
Adam Liptak

Chief Justice Roberts says the major questions doctrine seems to apply here. If so, that is bad news for the administration.

On the one hand, a victory for ordinary people facing high prices already. On the other hand, also saving Trump from the consequences of his bad decisions.

no, it's good when trump loses.

Yes, it’s good when Trump loses

Anyway crypto and AI will crash the economy soon anyway

I've been saying for a long time that this was one case where the court would probably go against Trump's wishes because their big red line is anything that directly hurts their net worth. They get to look principled while yes, saving him from himself.

I've been listening to the arguments for the last 45 minutes or so. Roberts, Barrett and Gorsuch definitely skeptical of the administration's claims, although they're also asking tough questions to the plaintiff side. I look forward to Stern and others reading the tea leaves.

Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas also both floated hypothetical scenarios in which presidents could only avert farfetched crises via tariff: If China were to hold a U.S. citizen hostage, Thomas wondered if IEEPA would allow a president to “impose a tariff for the purpose of leveraging his position to recover our hostage.”

Rejected Jack Bauer plotlines aside, though, the Republican justices were sufficiently hostile to the administration’s arguments on Wednesday to suggest that, together with the Democratic justices, there are enough votes to find the current tariff scheme unlawful. But please do not mistake this for a willingness to take a stand against Trump’s lawbreaking. What the Court’s conservatives have shown since Trump took office is that they have no problem letting the administration run roughshod over laws, just as long as that lawbreaking comes at the expense of people of color, not the stock market.

https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/learning-resources-oral-argument-recap/

These are two very stupid men.

What if China took an American hostage, and we threatened to drop Alito and Thomas on Shanghai?

On the shadow docket, the Supreme Court lets Trump resume misgendering trans Americans on their passports, claiming "the government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment." All three liberals dissent.

Jackson's sharply worded dissent rips apart Supreme Court majority and Trump Justice department argument. In part she writes--As is becoming routine, the Government seeks an emergency stay of a District Court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. As is also becoming routine, this Court misunderstands the assignment. What the Government needs (and what it does not have)
is an explanation for why it faces harm unless the President’s chosen policy is implemented now. It suggests that
there is an urgent foreign policy interest in dictating sex
markers on passports, but does not elaborate as to what
that interest might possibly be. All the Government is able
to muster is the statement that “the injunction forces the
government to misrepresent the sex of passport holders to
foreign nations” and to “contradict . . . biological reality.”
Application for Stay of Injunction 34. But how urgent can
this interest be when the Passport Policy itself allows
transgender Americans who already have passports with
sex markers reflecting their current gender identity to continue using those passports until they expire?
The Government also insists that gender identity is not a
meaningful basis for identification—strangely begging the
question why sex markers are required on passports at all.

"The government seeks to enforce a questionably legal new policy immediately, but it offers no evidence it will suffer any harm if it is temporarily enjoined from doing so, while the plaintiffs will be subject to imminent, concrete injury if the policy goes into effect."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a319_i4dj.pdf