2025 SCOTUS Decisions

[UNI88]

Speaking of legacies, John Robert’s is getting destroyed.

Pretty sure he never had a lot of fans in that segment of the twitter world anyway. Surprised he (or you) didn't try to work in Citizen's United as well. As with all things historical, his legacy will be decided well down the line. When his court holds the line and bars Trump from serving a third term that will be looked on well by historians, even though the MAGA folks will take their turn lambasting him.

I'm interested to see the precedence this sets. SCOTUS seems to be intent on rubber stamping trump's approach. Have they considered the unintended consequences? How a Democratic POTUS might use their rulings? What group(s) they might use this ruling to target? Will rednecks living in trailer parks, drinking Natty Light have reason to be afraid?

I think it's bullshit that someone of latino descent might have to carry a passport with them at all times to be able to prove their citizenship where someone more clearly of European descent doesn't. Racial profiling is bigotry and goes against the Constitution and what makes America great.

[GannonFan]

Pretty sure he never had a lot of fans in that segment of the twitter world anyway. Surprised he (or you) didn't try to work in Citizen's United as well. As with all things historical, his legacy will be decided well down the line. When his court holds the line and bars Trump from serving a third term that will be looked on well by historians, even though the MAGA folks will take their turn lambasting him.

Citizens United is self evident. As is presidential immunity. Do you really think 100 years from now historians are gonna say: you know what? Buying elections and making the president above the law were good decisions?

He may have opportunities to redeem himself but as of now he’s an utter failure when it comes to the constitution.

Well, to take the second one first, the presidential immunity thing hasn't even been decided. The major thrust of that decision was go back to the lower courts and work it through before coming to the SCOTUS in the first place. It only went straight to the SCOTUS because Jack Smith was desperately trying to swing an election and needed to speed it up since Dems had slow walked it too much into the election year. What SCOTUS did rule on, as opposed to returning to the lower courts, was the easy stuff that wasn't even controversial, i.e. you can't sue the President him/herself for the waging of a war or other Constitutional powers. I highly advise, if you're really interested, to actually read the decision in full rather than relying on the reader's digest version that's spun out there by various media of either political side.

And yes, Citizens United is self-evident, but not the way you hope it is. People have the right to say whatever they want to in this country, barring the obligatory fire in a crowded theater examples. If they want to say they want Trump for President or they want Biden for President, they can and should be allowed to say that. If they happen to want to say that on the internet or over the airwaves, they're free to say that as well. If groups of people want to get together and do the same thing, they can. Efforts to squash the ability to say those things is the anti-constitutional thing. If we really want to take money out of political elections, then an amendment specifically doing that would work very nicely. Other than that, you're just restricting speech, which again, would be the anti-constitutional thing. And strangely, ever since that decision, the side in the election with the most money has only won 2 out of the 4 elections, so not exactly a ringing endorsement that money trumps (no pun intended) all.

[GannonFan]

Pretty sure he never had a lot of fans in that segment of the twitter world anyway. Surprised he (or you) didn't try to work in Citizen's United as well. As with all things historical, his legacy will be decided well down the line. When his court holds the line and bars Trump from serving a third term that will be looked on well by historians, even though the MAGA folks will take their turn lambasting him.

I'm interested to see the precedence this sets. SCOTUS seems to be intent on rubber stamping trump's approach. Have they considered the unintended consequences? How a Democratic POTUS might use their rulings? What group(s) they might use this ruling to target? Will rednecks living in trailer parks, drinking Natty Light have reason to be afraid?

I think it's bullshit that someone of latino descent might have to carry a passport with them at all times to be able to prove their citizenship where someone more clearly of European descent doesn't. Racial profiling is bigotry and goes against the Constitution and what makes America great.

It's still not decided - again, it was an expedited search for an opinion from SCOTUS and they largely pushed it back to the lower court where the case was being heard. When the case is formally heard and formally ruled on, then we can pick apart whether it was a crappy decision or not. But there hasn't been a decision yet.

[UNI88]

I'm interested to see the precedence this sets. SCOTUS seems to be intent on rubber stamping trump's approach. Have they considered the unintended consequences? How a Democratic POTUS might use their rulings? What group(s) they might use this ruling to target? Will rednecks living in trailer parks, drinking Natty Light have reason to be afraid?

I think it's bullshit that someone of latino descent might have to carry a passport with them at all times to be able to prove their citizenship where someone more clearly of European descent doesn't. Racial profiling is bigotry and goes against the Constitution and what makes America great.

It's still not decided - again, it was an expedited search for an opinion from SCOTUS and they largely pushed it back to the lower court where the case was being heard. When the case is formally heard and formally ruled on, then we can pick apart whether it was a crappy decision or not. But there hasn't been a decision yet.

I actually like this SCOTUS and yes, there's a lot still to be decided but it's about more than just Presidential immunity.

The trump regime hasn't been bogged down in these lawsuits because they're under attack by unhinged, raging leftists. They're bogged down in these lawsuits because they're attacking the foundations of our republic and people and institutions are fighting back.

[GannonFan]

It's still not decided - again, it was an expedited search for an opinion from SCOTUS and they largely pushed it back to the lower court where the case was being heard. When the case is formally heard and formally ruled on, then we can pick apart whether it was a crappy decision or not. But there hasn't been a decision yet.

I actually like this SCOTUS and yes, there's a lot still to be decided but it's about more than just Presidential immunity.

The trump regime hasn't been bogged down in these lawsuits because they're under attack by unhinged, raging leftists. They're bogged down in these lawsuits because they're attacking the foundations of our republic and people and institutions are fighting back.

Agreed. When you do things like many things this administration has done, then there will be pushback, and often that will occur in the courts. That's the way it's intended.

[UNI88]

18-0 Trump/SCOTUS on same page.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/12/tr ... gue-judges

Trump’s 18-0 Winning Streak At SCOTUS Underscores The Problem Of Rogue Judges

FAKE NEWS!

Judges vexed by Supreme Court 'shadow docket' rulings in Trump cases

Trump's administration has filed 25 emergency applications with the Supreme Court this year challenging rulings impeding his policies, while another such application was filed in a Trump-related case by lawyers for migrants on the verge of deportation. The court has acted in 24 of these cases. It has sided with Trump entirely or in part 21 times and decided against him twice. The court postponed action in one case that later was declared moot, and the administration withdrew two applications.

ChatGPT told me that:

“Granting” in an emergency application context doesn’t always mean a full win on the merits — sometimes the Court temporarily stays or partially lifts a lower court order to allow actions while litigation proceeds.

Some applications were partially granted and partially denied.

BDK has taught me that if a statement is slightly wrong then it is completely wrong and can be disregarded in its entirety.

Is the problem rogue judges or a SCOTUS that is rubber stamping trump's policies without regard for the law?

[UNI88]

[BDKJMU]

US Supreme Court lets Trump strip temporary status from Venezuelan migrants
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us- ... 34533.html

These are the ones that Biden granted temporary status to in 2021 & 2023, then on his way out the door in Jan extended the ‘Temporary‘ status until Oct 2026.

[UNI88]

Clarence Thomas Clerk Issues Dire Warning About Supreme Court’s Agenda

In an essay for the NYU Law Democracy Project, originalist legal scholar and University of Virginia School of Law professor Caleb Nelson argued that the Constitution’s text and historical context give Congress wide latitude to organize the executive branch and to impose limits on the president’s power to remove officials.

It’s an issue that is already front and center on the court’s docket, and one that Nelson warns “can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions” in the case of “a President bent on vengeful, destructive and lawless behavior.”
...
“It is true that Article II vests the executive power in the President,” Nelson, who clerked for Thomas from 1994 to 1995, wrote in his article. “But Congress is in charge of creating offices within the executive branch, and the Constitution does not give the President unilateral power to dictate who will fill those offices or what their authorities and duties will be.”

While the current Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration since the president returned to office in January, Nelson hopes “the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose” when deciding cases like Slaughter’s.

However, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak believes “There is little question that the court will side with the president. Its conservative majority has repeatedly signaled that it plans to adopt the ‘unitary executive theory,’ which says the original understanding of the Constitution demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit.”
...
“Bombshell!” was constitutional law scholar and professor William Baude’s immediate reaction to Nelson’s commentary. “Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of Article II,” he wrote.

Interesting. How will Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett vote?

[kalm]

Clarence Thomas Clerk Issues Dire Warning About Supreme Court’s Agenda

In an essay for the NYU Law Democracy Project, originalist legal scholar and University of Virginia School of Law professor Caleb Nelson argued that the Constitution’s text and historical context give Congress wide latitude to organize the executive branch and to impose limits on the president’s power to remove officials.

It’s an issue that is already front and center on the court’s docket, and one that Nelson warns “can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions” in the case of “a President bent on vengeful, destructive and lawless behavior.”
...
“It is true that Article II vests the executive power in the President,” Nelson, who clerked for Thomas from 1994 to 1995, wrote in his article. “But Congress is in charge of creating offices within the executive branch, and the Constitution does not give the President unilateral power to dictate who will fill those offices or what their authorities and duties will be.”

While the current Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration since the president returned to office in January, Nelson hopes “the Justices will not act as if their hands are tied and they cannot consider any consequences of the interpretations that they choose” when deciding cases like Slaughter’s.

However, The New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak believes “There is little question that the court will side with the president. Its conservative majority has repeatedly signaled that it plans to adopt the ‘unitary executive theory,’ which says the original understanding of the Constitution demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit.”
...
“Bombshell!” was constitutional law scholar and professor William Baude’s immediate reaction to Nelson’s commentary. “Caleb Nelson, one of the most respected originalist scholars in the country, comes out against the unitary executive interpretation of Article II,” he wrote.

Interesting. How will Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett vote?

Seems like a no-brainer given what’s currently happening.

[BDKJMU]

[UNI88]

Supreme Court liberals decry ‘excruciating suffocation’ in nitrogen hypoxia executions

But use of nitrogen gas in executions, Sotomayor wrote, has demonstrated that the method is “not at all what it was promised to be.” It takes at least two minutes and possibly as many as seven to lose consciousness, Sotomayor wrote – “that is, up to seven full minutes of conscious, excruciating suffocation.”
...
“The Constitution would grant him that grace,” Sotomayor wrote. “My colleagues do not. This court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.”

[GannonFan]

Supreme Court liberals decry ‘excruciating suffocation’ in nitrogen hypoxia executions

But use of nitrogen gas in executions, Sotomayor wrote, has demonstrated that the method is “not at all what it was promised to be.” It takes at least two minutes and possibly as many as seven to lose consciousness, Sotomayor wrote – “that is, up to seven full minutes of conscious, excruciating suffocation.”
...
“The Constitution would grant him that grace,” Sotomayor wrote. “My colleagues do not. This court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.”

Crazy. Why don't they sedate the condemned first before suffocating them? Or at least let them have a firing squad.

[UNI88]

Supreme Court liberals decry ‘excruciating suffocation’ in nitrogen hypoxia executions

Crazy. Why don't they sedate the condemned first before suffocating them? Or at least let them have a firing squad.

If it really takes 2-7 minutes to suffocate then I have to agree with Sotomayor that it's cruel and unusual punishment. Some of them might deserve it but our Constitution prevents it and we shouldn't be picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution apply and which don't.

[kalm]

Crazy. Why don't they sedate the condemned first before suffocating them? Or at least let them have a firing squad.

If it really takes 2-7 minutes to suffocate then I have to agree with Sotomayor that it's cruel and unusual punishment. Some of them might deserve it but our Constitution prevents it and we shouldn't be picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution apply and which don't.

There are I.V. sedatives that knock your ass out within 30 seconds and last for 45 mintutes.

[GannonFan]

If it really takes 2-7 minutes to suffocate then I have to agree with Sotomayor that it's cruel and unusual punishment. Some of them might deserve it but our Constitution prevents it and we shouldn't be picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution apply and which don't.

There are I.V. sedatives that knock your ass out within 30 seconds and last for 45 mintutes.

Yeah, just give them the stuff they use for colonoscopies.

[kalm]

There are I.V. sedatives that knock your ass out within 30 seconds and last for 45 mintutes.

Yeah, just give them the stuff they use for colonoscopies.

Exactly! And in my case endoscopies too. Best nap you’ll ever have.

[GannonFan]

SCOTUS starts to hear the cases on the tariffs today. Hopefully will start hearing the skepticism for what Trump's done and the wide swath he's done them. There should be a fair amount of reining back in on this particular front. It will mean Congress has to actually do something in the future, but that's been long coming anyway.

[BDKJMU]

A win for sanity.

[Caribbean Hen]

A win for sanity.

Yes.. fighting back on the Stupid Times

[kalm]

A win for sanity.

Yes.. fighting back on the Stupid Times

So now CH has to declare he’s a woman.

[Caribbean Hen]

Yes.. fighting back on the Stupid Times

So now CH has to declare he’s a woman.

It was “She’s a Woman” dummy

[UNI88]

Yes.. fighting back on the Stupid Times

So now CH has to declare he’s a woman.

CH's song ...

[kalm]

So now CH has to declare he’s a woman.

CH's song ...

I met her in a club down in old Puerto Rico…

[Caribbean Hen]

Victor so dumb

If 90 % of the illegals are Latinos, you target Latinos

But math is racist

Trust me on something, if you look at a Latino but don’t recognize the person as Latino, chances are you offended that Latino because they’re proud of being Latino…