Trump Admin - SCOTUS

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Supreme Court Punts on Trump Firing Legally Protected Official​




The backstory is that President Trump fired Dellinger from his perch as head of the Office of Special Counsel. He is the sole proprietor of that office and is protected from dismissal by law except in cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Dellinger sued. The trial judge issued a temporary restraining order reinstating him. The government appealed to the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, but with a strongly worded dissent, upheld the TRO. The government fired off a blistering appeal to the Supreme Court. This, in my view, is part of Trump's assault on some of the case law that makes the Administrative State possible.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have outright denied the Trump administration’s request. Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have overturned the TRO.

The bottom line here is that SCOTUS is giving the DC Circuit the chance to make a ruling before moving ahead. Indeed, it seems to be giving the DC Circuit time to tap the brakes on this action. If the appeals court sustains the existing order, it will be dumped right back in the Supreme Court's lap as an emergency appeal by the government. If the current order is set aside but the case is allowed to proceed, then everyone has more time to think about what is going on.


1740250424389.png
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin, Limits Nationwide Injunctions​





The majority of the court said that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” it said.

More specifically, the court said that the Judiciary Act of 1789 had not granted courts such broad authority.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Writing for the dissent, Sotomayor said the court had “abdicate[d] its vital role” in fighting for the survival of the nation’s democracy.

She said that Trump had made a mockery of the Constitution. “Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,” she said.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Justice Barrett Rightfully Blasts Justice Jackson's Dangerous Rejection of Constitutional Order​




The Precedent Problem​

Jackson's dissent reveals an incredibly problematic approach to legal reasoning that places emotional appeals above established precedent and constitutional structure. Rather than engaging seriously with centuries of equity jurisprudence and the clear text of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Jackson dismisses these constraints as a "smokescreen" obscuring what she sees as a more fundamental question about judicial power.

This represents a dangerous departure from how American law actually works. Our legal system is built on precedent, not just when courts choose to uphold it, but when they carefully explain why historical practice must be updated or discarded. Jackson's approach bypasses this methodical process entirely, favoring instead what she calls the "enormous legal and practical significance" of ordering the Executive to follow the law universally.

The problem isn't Jackson's goal—ensuring executive compliance with law—but her willingness to ignore legal constraints to achieve it. When justices start treating precedent as merely advisory and constitutional text as infinitely malleable, they create the conditions for erratic, inconsistent decisions that respond only to the political pressures of the moment. Today's "existential threat" becomes tomorrow's forgotten crisis, but the judicial precedent remains to wreak havoc on future cases.


Misreading History to Expand Power​

Jackson's historical analysis is equally problematic. She argues that American courts shouldn't be bound by English equity practices because "the Founders rejected a governing system in which the King ruled all." This conflates the English judicial system with the English monarchy, which were two distinct institutions that the Founders carefully separated in their thinking.

If the Founders truly wanted to reject English legal traditions entirely, why didn't they create a completely new legal system? Instead, they built upon English common law principles, equity practices, and judicial procedures while rejecting political subjugation to the Crown. The American Revolution was fought for the rights of Englishmen, not against English legal traditions, because the Founders believed they deserved the same rights as English citizens while rejecting colonial political control.

Jackson's selective use of history, embracing founding principles when they support expanded judicial power while dismissing them when they impose constraints, reveals an approach to constitutional interpretation that treats history as a cafeteria line rather than a binding inheritance.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Justice Kagan’s Own Words Come Back to Haunt Her on Nationwide Injunctions​




The liberal wing of the court didn’t do itself any favors, either. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was so horrible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to call it out in the majority opinion.

But Justice Elena Kagan’s credibility also took a direct hit. In a stunning display of judicial flip-flopping, Kagan’s own words from 2022 have come back to haunt her, exposing the left’s all-too-familiar habit of changing the rules when it suits their political objectives.

Nationwide injunctions have been the left’s go-to tactic for derailing conservative policy at the stroke of a single judge’s pen. Under Trump, district judges from deep-blue enclaves repeatedly issued sweeping orders to block administration policies nationwide at an unprecedented pace, no matter how tenuous the legal grounds.

Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric, there’s no doubt that the left’s current position on nationwide injunctions is purely political—and Justice Elena Kagan accidentally proved it.

How? Well, Justice Kagan, who dissented in this case, was singing a very different tune just a couple of years ago. Back in 2022, when President Biden was in the White House and conservatives were the ones seeking relief from his executive orders, Kagan was openly skeptical of nationwide injunctions.

“This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process,” she said.

That’s not some out-of-context paraphrase—it’s her own words, on the record.

Fast forward to 2025, and suddenly Kagan’s skepticism has evaporated. Now that Donald Trump is back in the Oval Office, she’s all-in for the same judicial overreach she once panned. It just goes to show you who the real partisans on the court are. They aren’t adhering to any particular judicial philosophy or the Constitution, they care only about whether a particular ruling hurts or benefits the Democratic Party.

This isn’t just about one justice’s hypocrisy. It’s a window into the left’s broader approach to power. When they control the levers of government, they demand deference and restraint from the courts. When they’re out of power, they want unelected judges to act as a permanent veto against any policy they dislike. It’s not about the Constitution or the separation of powers—it’s about maintaining their grip on the bureaucracy by any means necessary.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Barrett exposed Jackson’s dissent as nothing more than a blatant call for judicial supremacy, an idea the Framers explicitly rejected. She reminded the court and the country that the answer to executive overreach isn’t for judges to crown themselves kings. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Barrett explained, "But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so."

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.” In other words: two wrongs don’t make a right, and judges aren’t dictators.

It’s almost comical to watch the left try to spin this. For years, leftists have cheered lower court judges who slap down every Trump policy with a nationwide injunction, no matter how flimsy the legal reasoning. But when the Supreme Court finally steps in to restore constitutional order, suddenly it’s a crisis for “democracy.” Joe Biden routinely boasted about how he was defying the Supreme Court after it ruled his student loan forgiveness was unconstitutional and even campaigned on it.

Barrett’s opinion didn’t just win the day for the Trump administration; it exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the left’s legal strategy. Jackson’s dissent, dripping with activist rhetoric, was no match for Barrett’s command of history, precedent, and the actual text of the Constitution. The reactions online say it all: conservatives are celebrating a long-overdue return to judicial restraint, while liberals are left sputtering about “imperial executives” as their favorite judicial power grab gets torched.

Barrett didn’t just disagree with Jackson; she obliterated her argument and, in the process, restored a crucial check on judicial overreach. The days of activist judges halting the will of the people with the stroke of a pen are numbered, thanks to a Supreme Court that finally remembers its role.




pjmedia.com

Amy Coney Barrett Utterly Humiliated Ketanji Brown Jackson

Barrett's majority opinion dismantles Jackson's dissent in Trump v. CASA, Inc, defending judicial restraint.
pjmedia.com pjmedia.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Cat fight at the Supreme Court!​



First, the Court is supposed to apply the law to the facts, public perception be damned. Second, the allusion to “corporate interests” is amateur activism. Is the Court supposed to disfavor corporations? What about large partnerships? What about LLCs? Non-governmental organizations? Charitable foundations? Sole proprietorships?

Is the law different depending on the choice of entity that one party made when they set up their organization?

Back to yesterday’s universal injunction case. Jackson’s dissent warned that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”

That’s a serious allegation. Her allegation is that the Supreme Court whose job is to interpret the law is threatening its very existence.

I have three responses to Jackson’s allegation. One, yawn. Two, notice how people who aren’t very smart like to use the phrase “existential threat” as if it makes them a French philosopher or something. Three, if abolishing universal injunctions threatens the rule of law, then how did the rule of law survive for two centuries without them?

Justice Barrett in response wrote that Jackson’s dissent “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” She observed that Jackson “decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Barrett wasn’t done: “Observing the limits on judicial authority – including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – is required by a judge’s oath.”

Finally came Barrett’s knockout punch: “Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”

In the cloistered confines of the Supreme Court, that constitutes a beating. Jackson was rightly condemned in a written opinion joined by six of the Justices for advocating a position contrary to two centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself, endorsing an imperial judiciary, violating the judge’s oath, and refusing to be bound by law even as she wildly accuses the Court of threatening the very existence of law.

Justice Barrett as the author of that take-down put to rest any doubts. She’s all woman, and she’s got a pair.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
There is no dearth of stupid people in America, and they exist in all walks of life, including the Supreme Court.

Just because someone wears a black robe doesn't make them automatically intelligent. Just a couple of years ago, Justice Kagan wrote a dissent that contained an idiotic hypothetical, and this week Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson -- who admitted she couldn't define what a 'woman' is during her confirmation hearing -- hasn't exactly covered herself in glory.

Some liberal justices, like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, were intelligent and just happened to be wrong.

Others, not so much.

Ben Dreyfuss doesn't like that we're pointing out the fact the highest court in the land has a few dim bulbs on it, though.



1751139939229.png








1751140132630.png

1751140155141.png




twitchy.com

They Haven't Proven Us Wrong! Ben Dreyfuss Says It's 'Unhealthy' to Think Some SCOTUS Justices Are Stupid

Ben Dreyfuss argues it's unhealthy to label SCOTUS justices as stupid amid ongoing debates.
twitchy.com twitchy.com





Yesterday, we brought you the fantastic story about how Justice Amy Coney Barrett nuked fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson from orbit in the Court's majority opinion on universal injunctions. That followed a viral video of Jackson saying 'I don't understand' during SCOTUS oral arguments. It's four minutes of absolute cringe.

This writer has to wonder if Jackson is so insufferable during deliberations, and so unwilling to do her job as a judge, that Coney Barrett wasn't just fed up before blasting her in the majority opinion. Because, hey, we all have that one co-worker, right?

And this tidbit is more evidence supporting that theory.







1751140271877.png

1751140291744.png

1751140348295.png




twitchy.com

WAIT FOR IT?! Childish Dissent From Justice Jackson Shows Us WHY Coney Barrett Nuked Her From Orbit

Childish dissent from Justice Jackson raises eyebrows over her SCOTUS performance.
twitchy.com twitchy.com
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Ketanji Brown Jackson ROASTED Over FOOLISH Dissent, IGNORING 200 Years of Precedent​



 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Sotomayor says public education is doomed without mandatory gay and trans story hour​




The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values.

The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared “another victory for right-wing culture warriors,” even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents.

However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there “will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and both education and children will “suffer” if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the “chilling effect” of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas.

The majority pushed back against “the deliberately blinkered view” of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that “the damage to America’s public education system will be profound” and “threatens the very essence of public education.”

The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S.

Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools.

Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: “If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.”

Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: “The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.”

These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children.

Today, many are indeed following Jackson’s advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism.

Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve “equity” and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack of math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

Justice Jackson ACCUSED OF AI Generating Her Dissent On Birthright Citizenship, Gets ROASTED​




 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Parebts should not have bto opt out of classes on trannies and homosexuals. Those classes do not belong in our schools.
Do away with the classes and the ding-alings who teach them. Pervert teachers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top