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.

allowing Mr. Trump to functionally eliminate a government department created by Congress without legislators’ input

WTF? So the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is now optional? By some magic hitherto unknown is Congressional legislation signed by a US President now not considered to be a law? Or maybe the SCOTUS's originalists have interpreted 'execute' to mean 'kill'?

Oh to have the power to instruct “the people” to march on DC, and to surround SCOTUS, and to let nobody pass until Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all formally resign their seats and are gone from there forever. By an order from the people. For corruption, for intentional malfeasance with respect to standards for reasonable jurisprudence and precedent, and for gross dereliction of duty as Chief Justice.

it’s purple but i feel it so strong

xp

Only this president. SCOTUS was careful to ensure they can bring back real enforcement if democrats ever find their way back into power.

that’s a pipe dream. this country is fucking cooked

^^^

packing my steamer trunk for the California Constitutional Convention

more liberal quitter talk is all i hear

call me a liberal again

intentional hbp, but the game is best with you mad, fighting, and on the field

(sorry man)

i agree, just feeling doomy today

Hopeful news for centrists: Both Gavvy and Obama laid into Trump again today.

🙏

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lunwmmvkqs2u

Another bad shadow court Decision allowing the President to remove Consumer Product Safety Commission Board members, the same way the court in an earlier Shadow court decision said he could remove NLRB members. Kagan wrote a dissent. Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence saying he agreed with majority but thinks maybe in such situations where the court is changing or narrowing a rule , it should hold a hearing and get briefed and write a full decision

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just allowed Trump to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products.

Trump fired the three Dems on the five-member commission in the middle of 7 year terms.

BREAKING: Bought and paid for Supreme Court allows Dear Leader to do whatever the fuck he wants.

Health, product safety, weather, ... this can't be just about left/right or blind capitalism anymore imho.

Are the billionaires actively trying to kill or deport as many of the non-billionaires as possible? i.e., a way of tackling the inequality problem that only billionaires could have come up with because it doesn't hurt them as directly/as much as paying taxes?

Yes, they are

Yeah it all looks a like what you'd do if you were trying to weaken the country structurally, so you could take it over. Overturn the system. That's totally what they're doing, it's the project of Project 2025.

Also, this AI fight seems important. They're trying to set ideological guidelines for what AI can say. You do that, and then you make everybody sort of reliant on AI for information, voila state media.

BREAKING: Ghislaine Maxwell appeals Supreme Court to overturn Epstein conviction.

who would have ever saw this coming!?!!??!

John Roberts use the shadow docket to overturn sex trafficker conviction challenge go!

Trump admin request for emergency shadow docket help made last Thursday

The Trump administration came once again to the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon and asked the justices to pause an order by a federal court in Massachusetts that would require the National Institutes of Health to pay grants that NIH had terminated because they conflicted with the Trump administration’s “policy positions on diversity, equity, and inclusion.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the case “presents a particularly clear case for this Court to intervene and stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard this Court’s rulings.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/trump-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-pause-order-requiring-payment-of-grants/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/08/02/supreme-court-louisiana-voting-rights-act/

Supreme Court asks for briefs re Voting Rights Act and creating of majority Black districts. Looks like they will decide that there’s no racism and it is unfair to white people to even have need for a voting rights act

Kavanaugh appearing at a Judicial Conference and interviewed by a former law clerk of his who is now a judge ( Kagan was also interviewed at a judicial conferences):

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said on Thursday that the Supreme Court should be wary of providing detailed explanations for its rulings on emergency applications like those arising from challenges to the Trump administration’s efforts to transform the federal government.

“There can be a risk, in writing the opinion, of a lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that’s not going to reflect the final view,” he said.

The justice made the remarks at the judicial conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, held this year in Kansas City, Mo.

In a similar appearance last week at the Ninth Circuit’s judicial conference, Justice Elena Kagan, who has often dissented from the court’s emergency rulings in favor of President Trump, made the opposite case, saying the majority should do more to explain its reasoning.

“I think as we have done more and more on this emergency docket, there becomes a real responsibility that I think we didn’t recognize when we first started down this road, to explain things better,” Justice Kagan said. “I think that we should hold ourselves, sort of on both sides, to a standard of explaining why we’re doing what we’re doing.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/us/politics/kavanaugh-supreme-court-emergency.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU8.lfon.JG2DVvYcDEx3&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

x-post -more pre-gloom regarding case Supreme Court is taking next year on Voting Rights Act, here from Richard L. Hasen for slate

But a technical briefing order in a long pending case out of Louisiana, posted on the court’s website after 5 p.m. on a Friday in August, was ominous. The order was likely intended to obscure that SCOTUS is ready to consider striking down the last remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2. Such a monumental ruling, likely not coming until June 2026, would change the nature of congressional, state, and local elections all across the country, and likely stir major civil rights protests as the midterm election season heats up...Although the order did not explicitly mention Section 2 or even the Voting Rights Act more generally—unquestionably to obscure things further—there is no doubting what’s going on here. The court is asking the parties to consider whether Louisiana’s compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by drawing a second majority-minority district—as the earlier Ardoin case seemed to require—is unconstitutional under a view of the Constitution as requiring colorblindness.

If the Supreme Court moves forward with this interpretation, it would be a sea change to voting rights law. A reading of the Constitution as forbidding race-conscious districting as mandated by Congress to deal with centuries of race discrimination in voting is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the powers granted directly to Congress to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments, and at odds with numerous precedents of the court itself. It would end what has been the most successful way that Black and other minority voters have gotten fair representation in Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies. It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished. Even if the court less drastically says that Section 2 cannot be used to require the second congressional district in this case, such a superficially more minimal ruling would mean the quick unraveling of most Section 2 districts, because if the facts in Louisiana don’t justify drawing a second district, most other Section 2 claims would fail too.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/08/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-clarence-thomas-message.html

It would be an earthquake in politics and make our legislative bodies whiter and our protection for minority voters greatly diminished.

The first half of that sentence may or may not be true, but the second half seems incontrovertible. Whether or not a candidate is white is secondary to the fact that successful candidates are those who address the concerns and issues of a majority of voters and if non-white voters are perpetually in the minority their concerns and issues will receive less effective representation than if they are in the majority.

The basic reasoning behind the ongoing attacks on the VRA is, "Racism's over, so it's OK to do racism again."

anti-racism was the real racism after all

Fall arguments sessions are set (& of course there's the emergency shadow docket too)

Mark Stern of slate notes on Bluesky--

The Supreme Court will decide whether a lawsuit challenging the validity of late-arriving mail ballots in Illinois can move forward on Oct. 8 (Bost).

It will consider rolling back 8th Amendment protections against the execution of mentally disabled people on Nov. 4 (Hamm).

And Stern forwarded Rick Hasen article-

Supreme Court Fast-Tracks Potential Demolition of Section 2 of Voting Rights Act by Setting Argument October 15 in Louisiana Case, Possibly in Time to Affect 2026 Midterm Elections

https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social/post/3lwf2e7yzis2o

NEWS: SCOTUS allows Mississippi to enforce a restrictive internet-access law without explanation. Kavanaugh writes to say it is likely unconstitutional but he is voting to allow it, only repeating the legal rule for his reasoning.

No one else wrote a word

He says those who oppose the law haven’t demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors them , despite the law likely being unconstitutional!

It's insane how these Trumpy justices overrule lower courts on these shadow docket/emergency decisions and rationalize them as if they are just applying the law

hell, I would too at this point

The Supreme Court has forfeited any claim to legitimacy, and must be torn down

*gavel*

Thread: https://bsky.app/profile/mjsdc.bsky.social/post/3lwwtj3c4f226

Impeach impeach impeach

Complicated messy decisions as noted in Bluesky link that Alfred posted. I also read a Washington Post take which when read with the Stern one on Bluesky suggests

This conservative 5-4 decision allows the Trump administration to cut nearly $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants for the study of diseases in minority, gay and transgender communities while drawn out legal deliberations about the funding legality play out in the lower courts, and specific grants can be challenged in the Court of Federal Claims but not a regular district court

These are of course also emergency shadow docket decisions done with little to no briefings , no detailed majority decision , and there was no oral argument. The 5-4 conservative majority one today said that lower courts should have relied on an earlier emergency shadow docket decision ( that was vague as well). Justice Jackson wrote a blistering dissent

“By today’s order, an evenly divided court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multi venue quest for complete relief. Neither party to the case suggested this convoluted procedural outcome, and no prior court has held that the law requires it. …

The Court also lobs this grenade without evaluating Congress’s intent or the profound legal and practical consequences of this ruling…”

Her dissent earlier said “ This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins. “

The Supreme Court’s conservatives bear SO much blame for this disaster. They really thought they could let Trump fire every agency leader EXCEPT members of the Fed, and Trump would abide by their stern admonition to leave the Fed alone. Embarrassing stupidity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/08/25/trump-lisa-cook-federal-reserve/

That's Mark Stern of Slate's comment re Trump firing Lisa Cook of the Fed (which he may may not legally be allowed to do, but is doing so anyway)

what if they're letting these bullshit actions and orders run because they know he'd ignore scotus denials, and roberts doesn't wanna lose face. which face should be impeached for dereliction of duty and general idiocy.

I think they are happy for him to do their dirty work. Their christofascist agenda goes into effect and they can keep a comfortable distance.

Law Professor Leah Litman has a post up at Crooked Media @crooked.com 's new Substack explaining how the Supreme Court is responsible for the government's campaign to terrorize and deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia:

https://crookedmedia.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-and-the-administrations

The Justices, some of whom it has been documented watch Fox News, are just as much MAGA as Trump

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch admonished in an opinion last week tied to the court’s decision to allow Trump to cancel nearly $800 million in research grants.

The rebuke, which was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, flipped the narrative that it is Trump who has pushed legal boundaries with his flurry of executive orders and support for impeaching judges who rule against him. A wave of legal conservatives took to social media to tout Gorsuch’s warning.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/25/politics/supreme-court-justices-trump-lower-court

Sotomayor and Jackson and even Kagan see through the majority actions-

“This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” Sotomayor wrote, dissenting from the court’s decision to allow the administration’s deportations of certain migrants to countries other than their homeland. “Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

I mean … this is fundamentally the country they want. One where rich white men can rule without fear of accountability. It doesn’t get much more originalist than that.

That's right

legal scholar Chris Geidner re Gorsuch tantrum from last week --Even in the context of a shadow docket order addressing an earlier shadow docket order (“turtles all the way down”), Gorsuch continued his reprimand — for himself and Kavanaugh — by stating that “when this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.“

Contrast that with what Barrett wrote, where she noted that this was her “preliminary judgment” about this case — and even that is only based on the premise of the earlier order, “if” that preliminary opinion in the Education case is correct.

Through his temper tantrum, Gorsuch goes a long way toward proving why the shadow docket’s orders — and the associated bare-bones, unsigned explanation when any is given — are exceptionally poor tools for lower courts to use as “precedent.”

After warning of the “anarchy” from below should lower courts not apply shadow docket “precedent” from such orders as Gorsuch believes it exists, he actually went on to show how meaningless his protestation is. ...he backed up (backs off from?) his “precedent” claim in the next paragraph