352
Trump Hammers Supreme Court After It Rules Against Him: ‘Dangerous Day for America!’
(www.mediaite.com)
Bet he's going to expand the court and nominate 5 new judges.
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
352 points (98.1% liked)
politics
23540 readers
2558 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can someone ELI5 ? I thought Trump had the supreme court in his pocket, having appointed a majority of its members?
The supreme court is particularly difficult to actually control. Each has their own beliefs and they're appointed for life. Thomas for example is fully on board with maga and will take bribes. But kavenaugh is pretty far right but generally seems to believe in the constitution in some form and wants the courts to keep power. Barrett is extremely right wing but is catholic before maga and it seems they're learning that the hard way recently.
This should have been 9-0. We're seeing a lot of 7-2 against Trump right now because he's blatantly violating the constitution. And the court to a certain degree trusts that when they say no, they have enough understanding with the military that when everything is said and done the military will want to have done what the court says as it's the legitimate governing body acting in accordance with the rules.
Barrett is an interesting one. She was there to provide a woman's voice against abortion. That job is done now. She was expected to line up with everything else in MAGA, but she's slowly realizing what a hell hole that is. Like Serena Waterford discovering that this isn't the world she wanted after all.
I didn't know they were appointed for life. That's terrible. Thanks for bringing more nuance to my otherwise basic understanding
The idea is thst they're supposed to be non partisan voices of the law. And we're seeing both sides of all of that. For a long time they've been partisan, but lifetime appointments mean that they can tell Trump to fuck off in a way congress can't. It's significant to note thst the two justices that keep voting with Trump weren't appointed by him. He appointed kavenaugh, gorsuch, and Barrett. And none of them seem to like him. Meanwhile Thomas has been on the court for decades but his wife is a major figure in maga.
Yeah, thats something that I think needs to change. To many times people sit on that bench until they are almost dead, and I dont like people like that making the laws. Just like I think there should be term limits on Congress
Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.
Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump's actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.
Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.
Oddly, it doesn't seem to be the Trump appointees who are the biggest problems. Thomas and Alito are completely shameless.
I read Alito's dissent.
His main objection is that the plaintiffs demanded a preliminary injunction with an extremely short deadline upon which they would consider a lack of ruling to be a "constructive denial" which they would appeal, which is highly irregular. He does not meaningfully address the reason for that irregular action, namely the government's attempts to outrun the judicial process and deport people to El Salvador, from which it claims it cannot return them. Alito claims the courts should rely on the government's statement that it would not deport the plaintiffs before their hearing.
Under normal circumstances, Alito would be correct. The government normally doesn't try to do illegal things before the courts can stop them and it would be inappropriate for a plaintiff to apply the extreme time pressure seen here. These are not normal times and the rest of the court appears to recognize that.
Thanks a lot for all the nuance, that's great !
Its for the press, they're trying to show a sense of control but they'll fold shortly
Wait... pro-Trump SCOTUS voted aggainst POTUS? Weird... weird...
This SCOUTS has 3 priorities:
- Stop workers rights and individual freedom
- Protect the wealth of the rich
- Placate Trump with anti woke bullshit
Sadly, all of us are focused on point 3, while they rape the 98%
Let’s see how quickly they fold.
That'll be lunch on monday
Bet you a buffalo nickel that before the end of his tenure, he's going to expand the court with ultra-loyalists, all but completely open about how they will ignore the law or always interpret it in the way that gives Trump what he wants.
I wonder if the chief justice will keep hanging his flag upside down and blaming his wife.....
VERGONA!
I think that was Alito, not Roberts.
It was
P247
8647
As expected. The attacks against the courts will only increase.
This article claims that one man was deported to El Salvador. Technically true the way they word it. But it wasnt just one man
True, but that passage is specifically referring specifically to a man who had a court order blocking his deportation. The others didn't specifically have such orders.
It would be much better if they were clearer about that.
just the Constitution
Hey so if they do send a bunch of white supremacists to the houses of SCOTUS we're good to show up and start _____ing the bigots right?
Duck yes
view more: next ›