The Supremes

[Vrede too]

Here’s what federal judges could do if they’re ignored by the Trump administration

Civil Contempt: Fine the agencies and agency heads. Fines might also be ignored.
Criminal Contempt: Relies on Bondi's DoJ and Marshalls Service cooperating.
Appeals: POTUS Musk and PINO MIGHT obey Appeals Courts or SCOTUS.
Political Consequences: We'll find out in Nov of 2026 and 2028.

[GoCubsGo]

Here’s what federal judges could do if they’re ignored by the Trump administration

Civil Contempt: Fine the agencies and agency heads. Fines might also be ignored.
Criminal Contempt: Relies on Bondi's DoJ and Marshalls Service cooperating.
Appeals: POTUS Musk and PINO MIGHT obey Appeals Courts or SCOTUS.
Political Consequences: We'll find out in Nov of 2026 and 2028.

Pretty toothless.

[Vrede too]

MAGA Turns On Amy Coney Barrett After She Sides With Liberal Justices Against Trump
Right-wingers attacked the Trump-appointed justice after she dissented against his use of the Alien Enemies Act — with some even targeting her kids.

Yep, that's just how MAGA is.

... Barrett’s vote has made her the target of attacks from many right-wing influencers on X, some of whom even went after her two adopted Black children.

Conservative pundit and former Trump supporter Ann Coulter posted a photo showing the justice with her children and wrote, “Who could’ve seen that coming?”

Ann Coulter, always such a respectful sweetheart.

Sam Parker, a MAGA Republican who ran for Senate in Utah in 2018, also posted a photo of Barrett’s family, with the caption “Who could have predicted Amy Coney Barrett would sell out her own people? If only there had been a sign.”

KKK dog whistle.

Other conservative commentators joined the conversation, including Catturd — a MAGA personality with 3.6 million X followers — who called Barrett “an absolute disgusting fraud.”

Catturd FAILS middle school Civics, as so many MAGAts do. SCOTUS justices owe no fealty to PINO or any other POTUS. That's how the founders designed our government, deal with it.

...

Sure beats your genocidal coldness, Musk, and MAGA's sick attacks on children.

[Whack9]

One of the most fundamental traits of evil is lack of empathy. Psychologists assigned to the Nuremberg trials argued the same.

Musk is telling on himself without realizing it. He's a sociopath. The only thing these guys - Trump, Musk, etc - care about is their own vanity. They don't care about right and wrong. Only "winning"

[Vrede too]

One of the most fundamental traits of evil is lack of empathy. Psychologists assigned to the Nuremberg trials argued the same.

Musk is telling on himself without realizing it. He's a sociopath. The only thing these guys - Trump, Musk, etc - care about is their own vanity. They don't care about right and wrong. Only "winning"

Hence, bitch slap for King Tang:

Chief Justice John Roberts stresses judicial independence amid tensions with Trump

... “The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law, and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,” Roberts said at an event in his native Buffalo, New York.

The judiciary’s role, Roberts added, is to “decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”

That work, Roberts said, “does require a degree of independence.”

Roberts’ remarks on the judiciary drew an extended round of applause from the judges and lawyers who gathered in Western New York to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the federal court there....

Roberts delivered a rare rebuke to the president in March, issuing the statement in response to calls at the time to impeach judges who have placed some parts of his agenda on hold, including the administration’s rapid rewriting of federal immigration policies and its efforts to reduce government spending approved by Congress.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in his earlier statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Most of Roberts’ remarks Wednesday stuck to familiar themes, though the chief justice did briefly defend decisions that overturn precedent. Though Roberts did not discuss specific modern cases, his court has received significant blowback – and sagging public approval – for its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“A lot of people talk as if we’re overruling a lot more. It’s the lowest it’s been since the ’50s,” Roberts said....

Well deserved.

[Vrede too]

AG Bondage spanked big time:

150 Former Judges Tell Pam Bondi They're Not 'Deranged'
In a letter to the attorney general, former judges say the Trump administration's intimidation tactics will fail.

... Calling out Trump’s actions ”does not make us ‘deranged.’ It’s what makes us Americans,” the former judges wrote....

The letter was spearheaded by former federal judge Nancy Gertner and former assistant attorney general and federal judge J. Michael Luttig. Its signatories include judges appointed by members of both parties.

Trump, the former judges argue, will never be successful in his efforts.

“This attempt to intimidate the judiciary will fail,” they wrote. “The American people understand that the Constitution of the United States has made the nation’s judicial officers the guardians of the rule of law in our country, not the President.”

Ouch, that's gotta hurt, Pam.

DHS Secretary Flouts SCOTUS Order, Says ‘No Scenario’ Where Abrego Garcia Comes Back
Kristi Noem said the deported Maryland man “will not be coming back" despite a court order, a claim that one Democratic senator called "incredibly chilling."

... “Abrego Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador and should never have been in this country and will not be coming back to this country,” she told senators. “There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again. If he were to come back, we would immediately deport him again.”

... Abrego Garcia is entitled to due process in the U.S., and the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to bring him back for it. The prospect of the executive branch intentionally violating an order from the nation’s highest court doesn’t just amount to a constitutional crisis; it is grounds for holding the Trump administration in contempt of court....

“The discussion ends when the Supreme Court rules 9-0 that you have to facilitate his release,” he said. “The fact you can’t even acknowledge the wording of the order which commands you to facilitate his release, and you advertise to this committee you are going to willfully ignore the ruling ― that is incredibly chilling for the balance of powers in a democracy that relies on the executive branch to honor decisions made by the highest court of the land.” ...

MAGA and the DHS Puppy Killer defecate on our Constitution.

Dissension in the ranks:

In Break From Trump, Mike Johnson Downplays Idea Of Impeaching Judges
The House speaker said there's a "high burden" for impeaching judges and suggested House Republicans wouldn't go there.

It was never going to get 60 votes in the Senate, anyhow. Poooor DonOLD, poooor MAGA.

[GoCubsGo]

[Vrede too]

https://bsky.app/profile/politico.com/p ... qjlblapc2v

RIP. The last 'surprise' justice?

Hidden Threat(s) to Democracy Slipped Into Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill

When President Donald Trump‘s “one big, beautiful bill” passed through the House this week, Republican lawmakers slipped in a provision to limit the power of the courts.

The move was revealed as the Trump administration has clashed repeatedly with the legal system since the president took office on January 20. Trump and his top officials have attacked court rulings and those who issue them as “activist judges.”

MAGA = Illegals

Buried deep in the text of the more than 1,000-page bill is a measure that would restrict the federal courts’ authority to hold government officials in contempt if they violate court orders....

“This is part of a continuing effort to neuter the courts,” said Cornell professor Joseph Margulies. “It is a move to consolidate monarchical power so that there is no longer any effective restraint posed by the judiciary.”

Can't obey the law? Just change the rules so it can't be enforced.

... This would severely restrict federal courts’ authority to hold officials in contempt if they violate judicial orders, according to the Campaign Legal Center.

“That’s a huge congressional overreach into the judicial branch, spurred on by the executive branch pushing Congress to do this,” said its senior legal counsel, Eric Kashdan.

Since January, Trump has taken sweeping actions to remake the federal government and carry out his agenda in the U.S. and abroad, including firing federal employees and top officials, freezing funds, and announcing controversial policy changes.

But the president’s efforts have been halted and reversed on numerous occasions by the courts. They have ruled more than 170 times against the Trump administration, finding in many cases the administration’s actions were unconstitutional, according to tracking by the New York Times.

"170", wow. No wonder he's a felon x 34.

In response, the president, vice president, other senior Trump administration officials, and close MAGA allies have attacked judges online, including by name, and sought to undermine the judiciary system as a co-equal branch of government.

Just this week, a federal judge found the administration violated a court order barring officials from deporting people to countries that were not their own without giving them sufficient time to contest it. It is not yet clear what the punishment would be.

Not only would the bill’s provision restrict the courts’ authority, but it would make court orders issued before the law takes effect unenforceable.

“That’s a huge retroactive attack on the rule of law in an attempt to undermine all the decisions that have already been held against the Trump administration,” added Kashdan.

Or, just obey the law in the first place, whiners.

... Even as it was slipped into the massive tax bill, the provision is unconstitutional, Margulies argued.

“Congress can’t infringe on the power of the judiciary to enforce its rules,” he said. “I would say this is a separation of powers violation.”

That is not the only “hidden gem” raising concerns for democracy.

The bill also includes banning state and local laws from being enforced when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence for ten years. It is a broad provision that would ban regulating AI in elections and political campaigns.

“It will be at least a decade… of unchecked AI’s usage creating fake content that is deceptively realistic. It’s going to interfere with voters’ right to know who was trying to influence their vote and what exactly decisions they’re making in an informed way at the ballot box,” Kashdan said.

DonOLD doing Putin's bidding, again.

... It is not yet clear whether the AI ban or court bond requirements will comply with Senate restrictions on what can be included in their bill, but senators will be facing pressure to remove the provisions.

“They’re both an attack on the rule of law, an attack on the judicial branch, and they’ll harm voters,” Kashdan warned.

GoDemocracyDefendersGo!

[GoCubsGo]

Is the legislation unconstitutional?

Can the courts over rule?

[Vrede too]

Is the legislation unconstitutional?

Can the courts overrule?

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies (above) and others argue that it's blatantly unconstitutional. We'll see if the provisions make it through the Senate and then what the courts do.

With 170 contrary rulings and counting DonOLD and AG Bondage must be running low on resources to fight back with and lawyer minions willing to risk contempt. Do they just start ignoring the courts on everything?

[GoCubsGo]

Is the legislation unconstitutional?

Can the courts overrule?

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies (above) and others argue that it's blatantly unconstitutional. We'll see if the provisions make it through the Senate and then what the courts do.

With 170 contrary rulings and counting DonOLD and AG Bondage must be running low on resources to fight back with and lawyer minions willing to risk contempt. Do they just start ignoring the courts on everything?

No time to prosecute criminals when you spend all your time defending DonOld.

[GoCubsGo]

She's a boss.


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests."

The attack on the court's conservative majority by the junior justice and member of the liberal wing is notably pointed and aggressive but stopped short of getting personal. It laid bare the stark divisions on the court and pent-up frustration in the minority over what Jackson described as inconsistent and unfair application of precedent by those in power.

[Vrede too]

She's a boss.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS

Hero!

Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
These are the five bigger cases the justices will issue opinions in, which could have nationwide implications.

The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break.

On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides.

Assholes. Some PPs will have to shut down. Women will suffer.

That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.

Assholes. Some families will have to move.

The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns;

it blocked a contract for the nation’s first religious charter school in Oklahoma;

it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed;

Depends, if she was really discriminated against the case may even strengthen anti-discrimination law for non-straights.

and it blocked Mexico’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.

Tens of thousands or more have died.

The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites....

NC has age verification for porn sites. There are still many sites that don't require it. Are they all offshore? Are the impotent prudes bad for American business? Make Eastern Europe Great Again.

[GoCubsGo]

Why do Republicans hate Americans, especially poor Americans?

[Supsalemgr]

She's a boss.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on SCOTUS: ANALYSIS

Hero!

Supreme Court decision guide: States can block Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid funding, and other cases to watch in 2025
These are the five bigger cases the justices will issue opinions in, which could have nationwide implications.

The Supreme Court is issuing a flurry of consequential decisions this week as the justices wrap up all of their unfinished business before they adjourn for summer break.

On Thursday, the high court ruled that states can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides.

Assholes. Some PPs will have to shut down. Women will suffer.

That decision comes a week after the court issued an opinion in one of the most highly anticipated decisions, delivering a setback for transgender rights. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld a Tennessee law that restricts gender-affirming care for minors.

Assholes. Some families will have to move.

The high court has also issued opinions in other bigger blockbuster cases this term: It upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns;

it blocked a contract for the nation’s first religious charter school in Oklahoma;

it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed;

Depends, if she was really discriminated against the case may even strengthen anti-discrimination law for non-straights.

and it blocked Mexico’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers.

Tens of thousands or more have died.

The court is expected to wrap up its term on Friday by releasing decisions in all of its remaining undecided cases, including rulings on hot-button issues like President Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, transgender rights, LGBTQ books in public schools and age verification for porn sites....

NC has age verification for porn sites. There are still many sites that don't require it. Are they all offshore? Are the impotent prudes bad for American business? Make Eastern Europe Great Again.

"Some PPs will have to shut down."

If they can't fund their own operation they should close.

[Vrede too]

Why do Republicans hate Americans, especially poor Americans?

It doesn't seem very christian to me.

[Whack9]

SCOTUS rules in Birthright Citizenship Case

6-3 decision from court’s conservative majority could imperil scope of damning court rulings against president’s agenda

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 78317.html

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has stripped federal courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump’s agenda.

Friday’s 6-3 ruling, written by Trump appointee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, states that federal judges went too far blocking his executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen. Those nationwide injunctions “exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts,” according to the ruling

...

The government pushed the Supreme Court to reduce the federal judiciary’s power to issue nationwide injunctions, cutting off one of the few critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law.

So if a federal district court issues an injunction on something because it rules it unconstitutional, that ruling only applies to that specific district, and does not apply nationwide?

Does this mean we will have multiple, competing, interpretations of the constitution depending on which district you live in? Can something be ruled unconstitutional and therefore illegal in one district, but still be legal in another? How would that even work? What's the point in even having a constitution?