Tag: Court Rulings

Is SCOTUS Running Sacred?

I have not been the kindest of critics of SCOTUS and that has not changed I still think they are nothing more than political hacks.

I did read an article that I found interesting if it is accurate….

…

The court’s action, although temporary, raised the deepest concern about the intentions of Chief Justice John Roberts and the “conservative” bloc (whose version of conservatism no longer extends to upholding legal precedents or constitutional norms).

Americans rightly worry that the court will allow or even encourage President Donald Trump to deny voting rights, intimidate voters, and tamper with balloting, if only because the court majority has so relentlessly expanded his authority and exempted him from ordinary oversight.

In one decision after another, they have awarded him the powers and immunities of a monarch in a casual manner that would have made the founders retch.

Indeed, the majority has consistently lent its authority and reputation to his dictatorial ambitions, while increasing the power of the wealthy in politics and diminishing or eliminating the protections afforded to society’s least powerful groups. Making many of these bad decisions worse is the justices’ recent habit of issuing important rulings on the “shadow docket,” unsigned and unexplained, which undermines their integrity and shields them from criticism. It is hard to know how to evaluate a decision when no logic or law is offered to undergird its validity.

It would not be unlike the Roberts right-wingers to upend this election with a shadow docket ruling, a cowardly maneuver they have adopted in more than two dozen cases since Trump returned to the White House — and ruled in his favor in more than three out of four.

https://www.alternet.org/supreme-court-mail-in/

Roberts has seemingly been doing Donny’s work for him in recent rulings and some think that could bite them in the ass come midterm elections….if that is true then could Roberts’ recent dissenting opinion be a false flag to make them look more neutral?

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals on Monday in a dispute over the planned White House ballroom, warning that his colleagues’ ruling threatens Congress’ control of federal spending. In a six-page dissent, Roberts said the $400 million project is “likely unlawful” because lawmakers never explicitly signed off on funding, reports the Hill, and he rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the work qualifies as routine White House upkeep. The dissent marks a rare break for Roberts from Trump’s claims to executive power, notes CNN, with the chief justice borrowing a line from Winston Churchill: “‘We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us’,” adding, “All the more reason to ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

The 5-4 majority didn’t decide whether the ballroom itself is legal. Instead, it ruled that a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation lacked standing to sue, saying her objections amounted to a simple dislike of the project. That cleared the way for above-ground construction to resume on what the administration now calls a national security upgrade. Roberts countered that the plaintiff’s long involvement in historic preservation and her interest in the White House as it currently stands make her injury concrete enough to get into court. “The White House is not just any building,” he wrote, and the decision is “no victory for the separation of powers.”

I realize this is just a minor thing but it comes when they are most worried about the midterms….so is this just a game for popularity (or as close to it as they could come in this short time)?

Is this just smoke blown up our butts?

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

It’s SCOTUS Time Again!

That’s right it is that magical time of year when SCOTUS listens to and then disregards everything to shove more crap down the throats of Americans.

It’s the first Monday in October, which means the Supreme Court gets back to work. This year, the overriding question is how much leeway the court will give President Trump as he flexes presidential authority. Justices are set to issue definitive rulings on major Trump policies—ranging from the legality of his tariffs to his push for greater control over independent federal agencies—that have so far been addressed mainly through temporary, emergency decisions, report the Washington Post and the AP. Details:

  • Among the headline issues is a case that could determine whether Trump can fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, a move with significant implications for the independence of the central bank. The case will be heard in January, per the New York Times.
  • Other pending matters include challenges to Trump’s sweeping tariffs, along with his efforts to end birthright citizenship, expedite deportations under a wartime law, and revoke protections for some 300,000 Venezuelan migrants.
  • “It’s hard to imagine bigger tests of presidential power than these potentially once-in-a-century separation-of-powers battles,” Deepak Gupta, a lawyer at the firm Gupta Wessler, tells the Times. “And we’re seeing more than one of them at once.”
  • Legal experts say the court, now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority, will be forced to clarify its stance on presidential authority, either reinforcing Trump’s expansive view or pushing back. “It really is going to be a showdown,” Jennifer Nou, a law professor at the University of Chicago, tells the Post. “So many of the president’s big-ticket constitutional issues and policy initiatives are quickly coming up before the court. All of this is coming to a head.”
  • The first big case of the new term is Tuesday, when the court will hear arguments about a Colorado law that bans “conversion therapy,” aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, per Reuters.
  • The term also features major cases on voting rights, such as the legality of drawing majority-minority districts in Louisiana, and campaign finance rules.

Most of their cases will be to extend Donny’s executive powers….

Among the issues already on the court’s docket: a case that could end what’s left of the landmark Voting Rights Act; a case that could do away with one of the few remaining laws that limits campaign fundraising; a challenge to the Trump tariffs; a challenge to his firing of independent agency commissioners before their fixed terms are completed; and much, much more.

Indeed, coming soon is likely to be the unanswered question from last term: Did President Trump exceed his authority when he issued an executive order barring a constitutional provision that guarantees automatic citizenship for every child born in the United States?

Since Trump took office for a second term, the conservative court’s 6-to-3 majority has been rocking the boat big time. In just eight months, it has broken all records for granting a president’s wishes on the “emergency docket.”

By the end of last week, the court had granted 20 of Trump’s requests to block lower court orders opposed by the administration. In contrast, the court ruled against the administration in these emergency cases just three times.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/06/nx-s1-5558414/supreme-court-term-preview

My guess most cases will have a 6-3 majority….the political hacks pertending to be judges will side with the despot in the WH as it has done so many times in the past 8 months or so.

Wanna venture any guesses?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”