The Federalist Society-Picked Supreme Court Continues to Disappoint

They did hand Trump one temporary victory. Temporary, because they struck down a temporary injunction from a district court judge blocking him from firing Biden's staffers from his government. (Are you kidding?)

This doesn't resolve the issue, and later, the Supreme Court may wind up forcing Trump to keep Biden's people in "his" government.

But for now, the temporary injunction is overturned.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with President Donald Trump, allowing him to remove two Biden-appointed officials from key federal boards, affirming executive authority in a major separation-of-powers decision. The ruling sets the stage for a broader challenge to decades-old precedent limiting the president's power over independent agencies.
Key Details:
Trump removed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris, sparking legal challenges.
The Supreme Court blocked a lower court's order to reinstate the two Democrat appointees.
Justices hinted at preserving protections for some officials, like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Of course.

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a significant win for President Donald Trump, ruling in favor of his authority to remove Biden-appointed officials from independent federal boards. The decision effectively blocks Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) from returning to their posts after being abruptly terminated by Trump earlier this year.
Both Wilcox and Harris had filed lawsuits in D.C. federal court claiming their terminations were "unlawful." But the Court's ruling--pushed forward by a majority of conservative justices--signals a shift toward reinforcing presidential control over the executive branch.
At the heart of the case is the question of whether presidents can remove officials from so-called independent agencies without cause, a precedent set nearly 90 years ago in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily halted their reinstatement earlier this year, and now the full Court has backed that move.
The Court's decision did not come without dissent. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the Court's liberal wing, sharply criticized the ruling. "Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency," she wrote.
Still, the justices did suggest that some limits remain intact--hinting that any attempt to remove Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, a frequent Trump target, could be blocked. Powell has faced criticism from Trump for refusing to cut interest rates more aggressively.
The Trump administration's legal team had urged the justices to either keep Wilcox and Harris off the boards while lower courts hear the case or bypass the appeals process entirely--arguing that reinstating them could cause "irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers."
"The President would lose control of critical parts of the Executive Branch for a significant portion of his term," Trump's attorneys wrote in their filing, "and he would likely have to spend further months voiding actions taken by improperly reinstated agency leaders."

The Supreme Court served up a more important loss. Oklahoma was poised to allow parents and students to use state money to attend any schools they liked, including religious ones, and Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from hearing the case.

The Court then split 4-4 on the issue. It's a per curiam ("by the court") decision, which means no justice signed it and we don't know who voted which way. We can assume that Roberts joined the liberals (because he is a liberal, so there's nothing to "join").

Which means the lower court's ruling, which had banned the use of state money to pay for religious schools, stands.

American Greatness runs an op-ed celebrating the "demise of the neocon Catholic establishment" as exemplified by the Federalist Society, a group which is basically establishment-liberal but with a couple of caveats. For too long conservatives have relied on this unconservative group to pick our judges and justices for us. Obviously they've delivered some real winners: Roberts. Barrett. Kavanaugh. Gorsuch.

This op-ed says that Trump will no longer be fooled and will reject them as judicial gatekeepers in the future.

Update: A lowly district court just issued another injunction presuming to overrule the elected president of the United States.

At this point the TROs are basically an automatic judicial veto on all new policy, and then the courts of appeals decide whether the judicial veto should be suspended. Whatever form of government that is, let’s please not call it “democracy.” https://t.co/75a0u7VYAp
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 23, 2025

Posted by: Ace at 02:40 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.

Posted by: American Hawkman at May 23, 2025 02:43 PM (9VDxG)

2 The worst one today is the ruling stopping Trump from re-organizing federal offices

Posted by: It's me donna at May 23, 2025 02:43 PM (VE6XX)

3 1 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.
Posted by: American Hawkman at May 23, 2025 02:43 PM (9VDxG)

I've wondered why they haven't tried something like that

Posted by: It's me donna at May 23, 2025 02:44 PM (VE6XX)

4 Harvard does not issue visas, the government does at their request. So, don't issue them, judges be damned. What can the possibly do?

Posted by: tcn in AK at May 23, 2025 02:45 PM (a4NoL)

5 I see no reason the executive officer should do executive office things.

Posted by: The M-5 Multitronic Unit at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (vFG9F)

6 1 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.
Posted by: American Hawkman at May 23, 2025 02:43 PM (9VDxG)

I've wondered why they haven't tried something like that
Posted by: It's me donna at May 23, 2025 02:44 PM (VE6XX)
---
It's a very exclusive club and they don't want to lose their cocktail party privileges.

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (7fElN)

7 Judicial review is going away. The only question is when.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (2UnvF)

8 ---
It's a very exclusive club and they don't want to lose their cocktail party privileges.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (7fElN)

That wouldn't surprise me...

Posted by: It's me donna at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (VE6XX)

9 The Supreme Cowards are not going to save us.

Posted by: Ghoulposts at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (qUkBO)

10
Trump Judges don't get "selected" for these cases.

Posted by: Frank Barone at May 23, 2025 02:48 PM (IifOV)

11 It's a very exclusive club and they don't want to lose their cocktail party privileges.
Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel

Why can't they just drink at home like normal drunks?

Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 02:49 PM (77rzZ)

12 The Supreme Cowards are not going to save us.
Posted by: Ghoulposts at May 23, 2025 02:47 PM (qUkBO)

I saw the Frozen Possums open for the Supreme Cowards at the Hollywood Bowl in 1991.

Posted by: Hour of the Wolf at May 23, 2025 02:49 PM (VNX3d)

13 Send in the 101st Airborne, Eisenhower style.

Posted by: You want authoritarian, let's get authoritarian at May 23, 2025 02:49 PM (TbWk/)

14 The State Department issues visas via consular offices, sometimes embassies. Easy enough to refuse a visa in that country. Where is the applicant going to go to fight that? Also logically there is no 'fight', you are just refused a visa.

Posted by: Ciampino - also shithole country at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (sPQoU)

15 How do judges get selected for the cases?? Speak of this like you would to a child...

Posted by: tubal at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (VBjZp)

16 Which means the lower court's ruling, which had banned the use of state money to pay for religious schools, stands.

Not sure if this applies to Iowa's Educational Student Assistance program. We just finished the second year of it. The money follows the student, so it's been a good program. Governor Reynolds is probably gearing up to battle SCOTUS on this, she's been very passionate about school choice. Iowa takes its education pretty darn seriously, so she'll have plenty of support.

Posted by: pookysgirl, teaching Lil Pooky about stringed instruments at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (Wt5PA)

17
We didn't vote for this.
Weo didn't vote for ANY of this.

Posted by: Trump voters everywhere at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (tV5x4)

18 Trump Judges don't get "selected" for these cases.
Posted by: Frank Barone at May 23, 2025 02:48 PM (IifOV)

I won 25 straight coin-tosses.

Posted by: Hirrary! at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (Aqu9a)

19 " Where is the applicant going to go to fight that?"

A Hawaiian judge.

Posted by: fd at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (vFG9F)

20 14 The State Department issues visas via consular offices, sometimes embassies. Easy enough to refuse a visa in that country. Where is the applicant going to go to fight that? Also logically there is no 'fight', you are just refused a visa.
Posted by: Ciampino - also shithole country at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (sPQoU)

And they can always go apply for a Mastercard or Discover.

Posted by: No credit for bad puns at May 23, 2025 02:50 PM (TbWk/)

21 We didn't vote for this.
We didn't vote for ANY of this.

Posted by: Trump voters everywhere at May 23, 2025 02:52 PM (tV5x4)

22 Until Congress gets off its ass and starts firing these judges, it’s only going to get worse.

Preliminary injunctions are only supposed to prevent irreparable harm. Getting fired is not irreparable harm. These cranks are giving out injunctions every time a leftard’s feelings are hurt.

Posted by: sniffybigtoe at May 23, 2025 02:52 PM (bWiPV)

23 Judge Ho of the 5th circuit laid it out well in his concurring opinion recently on the TdA deportation injunction. He basically said this is stupid and we shouldn't be doing it.

Posted by: Duke Lowell at May 23, 2025 02:52 PM (2UnvF)

24 It's a shame that once again we are hamstrung by the high potential for the GOP to join an impeachment effort led by the left when Trump ultimately has to tell the courts to fuck off.

Posted by: melodicmetal1 at May 23, 2025 02:52 PM (XLfSN)

25 Ace- I believe the court case was regarding the establishment of a Catholic Charter School with state funds, not vouchers to attend private schools.

ACB recused herself way back when the case was filed, and I believe it was because she had an association with one of the parties, not because she was catholic. I should probably go fact check this prior to posting, so will do that now. lol.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (pZEOD)

26 That they think that the overt contrary, partisan political philosophy is not reason enough for the President to fire someone in the Executive Branch sums up the insanity of the Left.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (VofaG)

27 Oh and bullshit on this “independent agency” crap. No such thing.

Posted by: sniffybigtoe at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (bWiPV)

28 We're seeing a pretty big flaw inherent in the legal system in which judges are called upon to rule about judges and are predictably sympathetic.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (2VST1)

29 so, is the harvard judge at least have havard in it's district?

because i can see some cocksucking hawiian judge blocking this...

Posted by: Sturmtoddler at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (v6XNT)

30 The justices were angry that day my friends...

Posted by: George Costanza at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (tV5x4)

31 Also, and this really is even more to the point, the left continues to steamroll "democracy" while at the same time publicly calling for violence.
This shit has to stop. Get the keffiyeh wearing terrorists in training the hell out of this country by any means necessary.

Posted by: melodicmetal1 at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (XLfSN)

32 Judge Burroughs must be an Ivy Leahue Level Retard...

because financial concerns are never a part of Irreparable Harm.

Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (hJb7m)

33 The Oklahoma decision was disappointing, but it's another decision which isn't as bad as it looks. Consider this:

1. A 4-4 decision does not create any precedent. This issue will be back to the Court.

2. The case was botched from the jump. The circumstances themselves are odd, in that this charter school was fully private -- unlike many charter schools -- and set up by the church itself.

Plus, the Republican AG in the state actually opposed the charter school, on the grounds that a future charter school might teach Islam and that couldn't be allowed.

3. The OK Supreme Court -- which does appear to be a bastion of liberalism -- ruled that this arrangement violated both the state and federal constitutions. So it's not just liberal activists who saw issues with this.

4. Overall, this case wasn't a great vehicle to test whether a fully private, church-created and -run could get state money. There will be other cases, hopefully with better overall facts.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (iFTx/)

34 Nothing political or even remotely government related is " independent "... add economic to that.. honest arbiters are Unicorns.

Posted by: tubal at May 23, 2025 02:56 PM (VBjZp)

35 Justices hinted at preserving protections for some officials, like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

--

This confuses me.
How can Congress create a special entity to enforce a law of Congress, The Federal Reserve, when the constitution clearly states that only the executive branch is tasked with carrying out and enforcing the laws of the United States?

How is this arrangement not extralegal or illegal, along with the CFB and other agencies that Congress created but are not considered part of the executive branch?

I don't recall anything in the constitution that gives congress the option to create a separate branch of government that is only controlled by budget and the president being able to appoint, but not fire, it's officials.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 02:56 PM (6ydKt)

36 3. The OK Supreme Court -- which does NOT appear to be a bastion of liberalism -- ruled that this arrangement violated both the state and federal constitutions. So it's not just liberal activists who saw issues with this.

Fuck. Corrected above.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 02:56 PM (iFTx/)

37 I figure disappointment happens when you expect one thing, and get something else.

Was anyone not expecting this?

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (dGCAG)

38 ACB recused herself way back when the case was filed, and I believe it was because she had an association with one of the parties

Yeah the problem here was not her, she did the right legal and moral thing. The problem was the four justices that voted against sense and reason.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (2VST1)

39 I should probably go fact check this prior to posting, so will do that now. lol.
Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (pZEOD)

why start now? it's never hindered any of the legacy media....

Posted by: Sturmtoddler at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (v6XNT)

40 Ignore them, arrest them, deport them. It's time to stop f*cking around with these unelected turds. If it leads to a civil war so be it.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (/U5Yz)

41 Despite what the MFM says, these judicial victories and defeats are not Trump's; they are 100 percent ours.

Posted by: LASue at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (lCppi)

42 Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (iFTx/)

Elric, we need you on the bench. Maybe you could get on Trump's radar somehow.

Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (77rzZ)

43 Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted.

Posted by: Nodding sagely at May 23, 2025 02:58 PM (tV5x4)

44 It's an Of Course kind of day.

Posted by: The FBI at May 23, 2025 02:58 PM (jc0TO)

45 42 Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (iFTx/)

Elric, we need you on the bench. Maybe you could get on Trump's radar somehow.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (77rzZ)

Maybe NSA Bob could put in a word for him...

Posted by: tubal at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (VBjZp)

46 ACB recused herself way back when the case was filed, and I believe it was because she had an association with one of the parties, not because she was catholic. I should probably go fact check this prior to posting, so will do that now. lol.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (pZEOD)

Grok reply: https://bit.ly/3F988fo

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not publicly disclose her reason for recusal, as is typical for Supreme Court justices. However, speculation suggests she may have recused herself due to a personal connection, possibly her friendship with a key lawyer involved in the case or a relationship with someone associated with the specific school in question, such as a Notre Dame professor advising the school. Without an official statement from Barrett, the exact reason remains unconfirmed.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (P5BPp)

47 dammit

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (jc0TO)

48 I'll just go out and come back in again.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (jc0TO)

49 Yes, this is about the establishment of religious charter schools, which are technically public schools. But the case didn’t set precedent so we may see it again. A real lawyer should explain this better than me.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (pZEOD)

50 The judges must think these partisan federal appointees are like college professors with tenure.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (VofaG)

51 It's an Of Course kind of day..

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (jc0TO)

52 We need a supreme court that will properly rule on the scope, breadth, and limitations of federal judicial rulings but wee don't have that. And its not just in the US. The left has figured out that they can control everything through judges and nobody can fight back. Its happening all across the western world.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (2VST1)

53 ACB recused herself way back when the case was filed, and I believe it was because she had an association with one of the parties

Yeah the problem here was not her, she did the right legal and moral thing. The problem was the four justices that voted against sense and reason.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (2VST1)
______

I'm not sure she had to recuse, but her recusing wasn't unreasonable. What pisses me off is that none of the liberals on the Court would have recused in the exact same circumstances. But ... are we sure we know how ACB would vote??

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:00 PM (iFTx/)

54 If Trump can fire the director of the FBI he can fire these podunk federal agency heads.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:00 PM (VofaG)

55 If only we had majorities in Congress, they could be writing every applicable EO from Trump into law!

Posted by: Lizzy at May 23, 2025 03:00 PM (Hkcdp)

56 I'm not sure she had to recuse, but her recusing wasn't unreasonable. What pisses me off is that none of the liberals on the Court would have recused in the exact same circumstances. But ... are we sure we know how ACB would vote??
Posted by: Elric Blade

Yeah, Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case.

Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 03:01 PM (77rzZ)

57 Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 02:55 PM (iFTx/)

Elric, we need you on the bench. Maybe you could get on Trump's radar somehow.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 02:57 PM (77rzZ)

Maybe NSA Bob could put in a word for him...
Posted by: tubal at May 23, 2025 02:59 PM (VBjZp)
______

Where do I apply? With my background, though, the odds I'd get confirmed to a bench are very low.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:01 PM (iFTx/)

58 I'm not sure she had to recuse, but her recusing wasn't unreasonable. What pisses me off is that none of the liberals on the Court would have recused in the exact same circumstances. But ... are we sure we know how ACB would vote??
Posted by: Elric Blade

Yeah, Kagan didn't recuse herself from the Obamacare case.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 03:01 PM (77rzZ)
________

Exactly ....

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (iFTx/)

59 Toby928

I'm not Ace or a co/blogger but I think saying damn is probably something you don't need to go out and come back in for. We've all seen more high intensity cursing that that here😉

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (iTeaO)

60 I knew a real lawyer could do this better than me! Thank you, Elric.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (pZEOD)

61 With my background, though, the odds I'd get confirmed to a bench are very low.
Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:01 PM

Yeah, I can relate.

It's the heads, right? You're looking at the heads.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (jc0TO)

62 Norm Eisen said he was going to do this - file hundreds upon hundreds of lawsuits to stop Trump.

So really, he’s decided that HE is the president, not Trump.

I didn’t vote for that azzhole!!!!!

Posted by: Lizzy at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (Hkcdp)

63 53 I'm not sure she had to recuse, but her recusing wasn't unreasonable. What pisses me off is that none of the liberals on the Court would have recused in the exact same circumstances. But ... are we sure we know how ACB would vote??
Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:00 PM (iFTx/)

======

Who enforces recusal?

I mean, there's no "had to" if there's no outside enforcement mechanism.

It's a gentleman's agreement, and "reasonable" is probably the best thing possible.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (GBKbO)

64 55 If only we had majorities in Congress, they could be writing every applicable EO from Trump into law!
Posted by: Lizzy a

We do and they're worthless sacks of rotting dogshit that
can't spend the time to support us or the President.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (/U5Yz)

65 I couldn't get confirmed because my hearings would bring up my knowledge of the porn industry.

A website lynching !!

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM (VofaG)

66 >>Who enforces recusal?

Nobody. It is strictly voluntary on the part of the Judge.

Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM (hJb7m)

67 For too long conservatives have relied on this unconservative group to pick our judges and justices for us. Obviously they've delivered some real winners: Roberts. Barrett. Kavanaugh. Gorsuch.

Trump should just keep a running list of judges who rule on these issues with some semblance of sanity and then promote them.

Judge Aileen Cannon seemed to at least be able to smell a bad case of B.S. when she was ruling on his case in Florida.
Promote her, and then find more like her.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM (6ydKt)

68 John Roberts needs to answer for his week-long private meeting with the Trump-hating Lawfare architect Norm Eisen.

What did they discuss?

Why did they have to meet privately in a secure diplomatic compound in the Czech Republic?

How does this not constitute an illegal ex parte communication?

Do any other Supreme Court Justices fly off to foreign countries to hold week-long private legal meetings with America-hating Leftists?

Rip the mask off. Make this man answer for his corruption.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (X+xvk)

69 Remember when we found out that since Clinton, the US approach to Eastern Europe and the Middle East was mostly driven by the goals set down by the Soros foundation?
The Federalist society is eerily similar.

I wonder if they have something similar to "NATO GOALS for the 21st Century"

Posted by: Kindltot at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (D7oie)

70 Nobody. It is strictly voluntary on the part of the Judge.
Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM

IT'S IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS!!

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (jc0TO)

71 I wish people wouldn't call me Cornhole. That's like private, you know?

Posted by: Amy Cornhole Barrett at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (paSBy)

72 It's a gentleman's agreement, and "reasonable" is probably the best thing possible.

Theoretically another judge but since there are no higher earthly courts...

Again it would be asking judges to rule on judges and how's that gonna turn out?

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:05 PM (2VST1)

73 70 Nobody. It is strictly voluntary on the part of the Judge.
Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM

IT'S IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS!!
Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03

Hang on there, cowboy. Are you questioning the ethics of judges?!?

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:05 PM (pZEOD)

74 The animus against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in particular seems very misplaced. Both are really good jurists.

Even Roberts and ACB aren't Souters.

Still, I get everyone's frustration with jurists who keep following rules in what is essentially a rigged game.

Activist conservative judges are going to be messy, but they may be a necessary corrective to our current state.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:05 PM (GBKbO)

75 I'm not sure she had to recuse, but her recusing wasn't unreasonable. What pisses me off is that none of the liberals on the Court would have recused in the exact same circumstances. But ... are we sure we know how ACB would vote??
Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:00 PM (iFTx/)

======

Who enforces recusal?

I mean, there's no "had to" if there's no outside enforcement mechanism.

It's a gentleman's agreement, and "reasonable" is probably the best thing possible.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:02 PM (GBKbO)
________

I'm not sure how it works at the SC, but usually a party to the case can make a motion to force a judge's recusal. It's very risky, because if you lose, then you'll be facing the same judge you tried to get rid of. If you shoot at the King, and all ....

At the SC level, I'm not sure who would determine whether one of the their judges should be recused against their will.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (iFTx/)

76 I like all four of them.

Posted by: Mitch at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (/U5Yz)

77 IT'S IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS!!
Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03

What is a plank sheet of paper ? Alex.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (VofaG)

78 75 I'm not sure how it works at the SC, but usually a party to the case can make a motion to force a judge's recusal. It's very risky, because if you lose, then you'll be facing the same judge you tried to get rid of. If you shoot at the King, and all ....

At the SC level, I'm not sure who would determine whether one of the their judges should be recused against their will.
Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (iFTx/)

=======

"Hey, Elena, think you should sit out this ACA case?"

"Fuck you, Johnny bitch boy."
-direct quote

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (GBKbO)

79 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.

I've been waiting decades for a conservative judge to rule the way the leftists do and...

I'm still waiting.

The best we have are cowards sadly.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (t0Rmr)

80 John Roberts needs to answer for his week-long private meeting with the Trump-hating Lawfare architect Norm Eisen.
What did they discuss?
Why did they have to meet privately in a secure diplomatic compound in the Czech Republic?
How does this not constitute an illegal ex parte communication?
Do any other Supreme Court Justices fly off to foreign countries to hold week-long private legal meetings with America-hating Leftists?
Rip the mask off. Make this man answer for his corruption.
Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (X+xvk)

DataRepublican (small r)
@DataRepublican
May 21
Replying to @NormEisen
Hello Mr. Eisen,

I was moved by your video. It's heartwarming to see you take the courageous stance of defending George Santos... finally, someone brave enough to champion the cause of indicted Congressmen! I completely agree: if prosecuting elected officials is now unconstitutional, the obvious first step is to vacate NY-03 and bring Santos back.

Also, I have to say: I miss your muppet shows. Those had more charm than your work organizing color revolutions for the Obama administration.

May 21, 2025 · 9:28 PM UTC

Posted by: Kindltot at May 23, 2025 03:06 PM (D7oie)

81 >>At the SC level, I'm not sure who would determine whether one of the their judges should be recused against their will.

100% Voluntary / At Will.

Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (hJb7m)

82 Amy Corndog Barrett has demonstrated that she is utterly useless. The time and energy wasted promoting this woman....My God.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (X+xvk)

83 We're just disgruntled JM... have not been gruntled for years...

Posted by: tubal at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (VBjZp)

84
At the SC level, I'm not sure who would determine whether one of the their judges should be recused against their will.

Kagan wrote Obamacare, then ruled it was constitutional.

This is the greatest ethics violation in the modern history of the SC and...no one cares.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (t0Rmr)

85 Nobody. It is strictly voluntary on the part of the Judge.
Posted by: garrett at May 23, 2025 03:03 PM

IT'S IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS!!
Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (jc0TO)

Lawyers have ethics????

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (dGCAG)

86 My opinion we are in the Commissar Judicial era

Posted by: Skip at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM (ypFCm)

87 My gripe with ACB and particularly Roberts is that all their rules are unruly. They have lost all consistency. The other judges are starting to quote their prior opinions in dissents.

I infer that this is a particularly lawyerly way to dig at someone.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM (jc0TO)

88 Speaking of judges . . .

Florida judge suspended for telling too many bad jokes
Here are a couple of real zingers:

Spring is here.
I got so excited I wet my plants!

And

What did the shirt say to the pair of pants?
Wassup britches!

-
He was lucky too avoid the death penalty.

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Now Available In Super Size! at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM (L/fGl)

89 Once again, the key problem is that all this system relies on maturity, honor, and virtue. Remember Schumer talking about lying and then saying "it worked didn't it?" when called on it? Think about the rulings by the far left justices which have no basis on logic or law. All the failures to recuse. If you have no honor and you have no decency, why NOT violate it all, there is no real cost.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM (2VST1)

90 68 John Roberts needs to answer for his week-long private meeting with the Trump-hating Lawfare architect Norm Eisen.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (X+xvk)

--

That's part of the problem, he has nobody to answer to.

I suppose Congress could call him to testify, but I'm not sure what could be done if he refuses on the grounds that he doesn't answer to anybody.

The FBI could investigate him, but they'd better have a damn good reason why with evidence to back it up.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM (6ydKt)

91 Lawyers have ethics????
Posted by: BurtTC

They consume lots of ethycal alcohol.

Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 03:09 PM (77rzZ)

92 I also agree that there shouldn't be ANY "independent agencies".

They're unconstitutional on their face.

You know the (correct) reasoning in the recent case that said Congress can't delegate its law-making authority to "agencies"?

Same thing.

Posted by: Rodrigo Borgia at May 23, 2025 03:09 PM (W5ArC)

93
IT'S IN THEIR CODE OF ETHICS!!
Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03

it's more guidelines, really...

Posted by: Sturmtoddler at May 23, 2025 03:09 PM (v6XNT)

94 The animus against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in particular seems very misplaced. Both are really good jurists. ---

In my opinion if you rule opposite of Thomas and Alito as much as these two have I say they have much to be desired. They're trying to be too 'smart' in some of their opinions. What I call legal logic.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:10 PM (VofaG)

95 At this point the TROs are basically an automatic judicial veto on all new policy, and then the courts of appeals decide whether the judicial veto should be suspended. Whatever form of government that is, let’s please not call it “democracy.”

Right. I'm sure it is a huge boost to the ego for the SCOTUS to be the kings of all the world, ruling on whether or not fellow branches of government can act or not act, but its not healthy for judges or the republic, such as it is.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:10 PM (2VST1)

96 The nominal answer to an SC judge that wouldn't remove herself when she is required to, like Kagan, is impeachment.

But the Congress will never ever take something like that up, let alone vote for it

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:10 PM (t0Rmr)

97 Amy Corndog Barrett has demonstrated that she is utterly useless. The time and energy wasted promoting this woman....My God.
Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:07 PM (X+xvk)

They came to her one night, approached her in the parking garage, emerged from the shadows, wearing a long overcoat, a brimmed hat, tugged down over the eyes, and handed her an envelope.

In the envelope was pictures of her kids. At school. Coming out of the nanny's house, their doctors' office, the playground where they frolic.

Then said "Be a shame if somefing was ta happen to da little tykes."

That was that.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:11 PM (dGCAG)

98 The stuff they are ruling on they shouldn't even allow through the doors: this is obvious, shut up and go home. Can the leader of the executive department hire and fire employees? Derp

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:11 PM (2VST1)

99 Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will get a chance to pick anyone on the court in his second term, unless Thomas or Alito decide to retire.

And I really don't want to roll the dice on finding a replacement for either guy that's even "as good" as them.

Posted by: Shenanigans at May 23, 2025 03:11 PM (pZ0Mr)

100 The FBI could investigate him, but they'd better have a damn good reason why with evidence to back it up.

CJ Roberts didn't kill himself.

Posted by: Kash Bongino at May 23, 2025 03:11 PM (/U5Yz)

101 94 The animus against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in particular seems very misplaced. Both are really good jurists. ---

In my opinion if you rule opposite of Thomas and Alito as much as these two have I say they have much to be desired. They're trying to be too 'smart' in some of their opinions. What I call legal logic.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:10 PM (VofaG)

========

They have sided with us on almost every major thing on merits, and they side with Thomas/Alito on most of the process stuff, too.

It's the process stuff that gets all the attention because people generally don't understand them beyond, "they ruled against us," when it amounts to, "they ruled that a stay of an order for a regulation on a pin needle needs to wait until merits are discussed" or something.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (GBKbO)

102 Roberts is an Epstein client. On important cases he will vote as he is told

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (t0Rmr)

103 I've got news for you guys. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing Little Mohammad getting the "proper" jihadist education.

Posted by: Orson at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (dIske)

104 Why did Barret recuse herself exactly?

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (t0Rmr)

105 74 The animus against Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in particular seems very misplaced. Both are really good jurists.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:05 PM (GBKbO)

I've got nothing against them.

Gorsuch did write that opinion that was pretty out there giving eastern Oklahoma back to the Creek as tribal land, though - McGirt v. Oklahoma.

It's still part of Oklahoma, as far as I know.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (6ydKt)

106 I repeat myself but if Trump is able to fire the Director of the FBI who is actually given a 10 year term why are these agency heads any different.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (VofaG)

107 Barrett must have known that recusal was unilateral disarmament but didn't care. Or did care because it improved her social status.

Posted by: Josh Brolin's Blistered Taint at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (cWxzo)

108 That they think that the overt contrary, partisan political philosophy is not reason enough for the President to fire someone in the Executive Branch sums up the insanity of the Left.
Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 02:53 PM (VofaG)

They think it's not reason enough for a Republican President.

Posted by: ... at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (dQpco)

109 If the elected federal government cant exercise consistent control over the currency or central banking, then we don't have a representative form of government. Even setting aside all the injunction bullshit.

Posted by: heya at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (aaNbl)

110
Trump has a limited amount of time to make progress. The Left knows this. Delay, delay, delay.

I hope some kind of torpedo is launched at these traitors, soon. I would hope this was gamed out before the election, but who knows.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (0B+OF)

111 No chance to pick another?
The Wise Latina enters the chat.

Posted by: torabora at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (4EcEj)

112 You have to read the dissent in the 6-3 case yesterday.
They sure seem to think it all-but over-rules Humphrey's Executor.
Especially the "exercises considerable executive power" which the courts had, until now, read as being basically just short of actually being President.
Now it's down to "maybe the Fed, since it's quasi-government and mostly private" counts.
But now, "for cause" restrictions on firing every dept. head and top personal under the Executive is gone.

I wrote on it yesterday afternoon and this morning, but I think it much bigger than suggested.

Kagan is better suited for NYT op-eds than legal opinions; her screed is no better than such except it has legal citations.
Particularly juicy is her lament about a unitary Executive that subservient to the President, something not seen since Hoover(or ever).

LOL, cry moor--I voted for this.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (AwdIo)

113 Unfortunately, I don't think Trump will get a chance to pick anyone on the court in his second term, unless Thomas or Alito decide to retire.

I f*cking hope not. Let Vance pick in 2029.

Posted by: Maj. Healey at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (/U5Yz)

114 Why did Barret recuse herself exactly?
Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (t0Rmr)

💰💰💰

Posted by: ... at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (dQpco)

115 96 The nominal answer to an SC judge that wouldn't remove herself when she is required to, like Kagan, is impeachment.

But the Congress will never ever take something like that up, let alone vote for it
Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:10 PM (t0Rmr)

And but for Roberts, we wouldn’t be discussing it anyway.

I still assert that if the big cannon of impeachment is to be fired, it needs to be KBJ. She is dangerously dumb and doesn’t even pretend to point to the constitution.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (pZEOD)

116 For too long conservatives have relied on this unconservative group to pick our judges and justices for us.

---------------

I wondered (so searched) if The Federalist Society gave us Sandra Day O'Connor.

Nope -- it was founded in 1982, the year following her nomination by President Reagan on July 7, 1981.

Unsurprisingly, there is a "Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies" at ASU's Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law ... so she had THAT going for her, which is nice. Ugh ...

Posted by: ShainS -- Hang 'Em Nigh! at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (inpra)

117 @90 That's part of the problem, he has nobody to answer to.

I suppose Congress could call him to testify, but I'm not sure what could be done if he refuses on the grounds that he doesn't answer to anybody.

The FBI could investigate him, but they'd better have a damn good reason why with evidence to back it up.

Posted by: SpeakingOf

*****************************************

No one in the press will even ask the question. That's what's killing me. Someone from the Trump administration needs to start asking it publicly.

How did that week-long meeting NOT constitute an ex parte communication? John Roberts needs to be FORCED to explain this.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (X+xvk)

118 If at some point in the very near future, Trump doesn't just tell these judges to pound sand, time is going to run out, and another election cycle will be upon us. This can't be settled in the courts because the courts are the problem. If there's a remedy, it has to come from Congress, and we've seen how that goes. things are going to get sporty, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Ex Rex Reeder at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (MZ+PY)

119 Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (GBKbO)

They have dissented from Alito and Thomas on more than a handful of cases . True or not?

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (VofaG)

120 Lawyers have ethics????
Posted by: BurtTC

They consume lots of ethycal alcohol.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 03:09 PM (77rzZ)

I'm picturing Jon Polito in Miller's Crossing, talking about ethics.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (dGCAG)

121 If the elected federal government cant exercise consistent control over the currency or central banking, then we don't have a representative form of government. Even setting aside all the injunction bullshit.

Someone else originally pointed it out, but when the Dems/FNM/GOPe talk about democracy or representative government, they do not mean the will of the people through their elected representatives - they mean rule by the transnational governing structures built after WWII and then extended after the end of the Cold War.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (t0Rmr)

122 112 But now, "for cause" restrictions on firing every dept. head and top personal under the Executive is gone.

Posted by: People's Hippo Voice at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (AwdIo)

=======

"But what if the left uses the administrative state to fill it with partisans who wield the power of the federal government against the people?! Which has never happened before!!! This could boomerang on us!!!"

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (GBKbO)

123 I would hope this was gamed out before the election, but who knows.

I think the original plan was "flood the zone, they cannot keep up" which is more or less working, but some of the immigration stuff they are being pretty successful at throwing a wrench into.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (2VST1)

124 Even Roberts and ACB aren't Souters.

Still, I get everyone's frustration with jurists who keep following rules in what is essentially a rigged game.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:05 PM

Asked Grok if ACB is actually a conservative justice based on her SCOTUS rulings so far:

Grok full reply: https://bit.ly/3Hmj61y

Barrett’s record is undeniably conservative, particularly on issues like religious liberty, gun rights, abortion, and administrative law. Her votes and opinions consistently favor limited government, traditional constitutional interpretation, and protections for religious institutions -- core conservative principles. However, her tendency toward narrow rulings, occasional alignment with liberal justices on specific issues (e.g., immunity scope), and recusals in high-profile cases like Drummond have led some observers to question whether she is as reliably conservative as expected. Critics on the right argue she sometimes prioritizes judicial minimalism over bold conservative outcomes, while liberals view her as a steady conservative vote despite occasional moderation.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (P5BPp)

125 I'm sure it is a huge boost to the ego for the SCOTUS to be the kings of all the world,

-
Jimmy Cagney in White Heat atop a refinery just moments before he's blown to Hell. "Top of the world, ma!"

Posted by: Anonosaurus Wrecks, Now Available In Super Size! at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (L/fGl)

126 119 Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (GBKbO)

They have dissented from Alito and Thomas on more than a handful of cases . True or not?
Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:14 PM (VofaG)

======

I'm not doing argument by authority. You have fun, though.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (GBKbO)

127 Time to start publicly calling this what it is... a judicial coup. And treat it as such.

The federal bureaucracy should have been a hollowed out shell of its former self by now, but these TRO's are slowing the process down to a crawl while the embedded ticks burrow deeper.

Time to slash and burn. Everything. To. The. Ground.

Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 23, 2025 03:16 PM (Q4IgG)

128 Now they tell us:

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org

Note that is about TROs.

Posted by: MAGA_Ken at May 23, 2025 03:17 PM (YMUlg)

129 Oh and I'll add #5 to my comments above:

5. The OK school choice decision itself is odd. It's "per curiam" with no opinion at all, no tally of who voted for what, and -- most oddly -- no dissent by Thomas or Alito. Both Thomas and Alito aren't shy when it comes to writing blistering dissents. But not here.

I'm convinced there was something about this case (see my comments 1-4 above) that even the conservatives didn't want to go to the mat for.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:17 PM (iFTx/)

130 I'm not doing argument by authority. You have fun, though.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (GBKbO)

That's not what it is but you have fun asserting it.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:17 PM (VofaG)

131 I asked Grok why it called Chief Justice Roberts a "pragmatic conservative" as compared to calling Thomas and Alito "staunch conservatives".

Grok full reply: https://bit.ly/44R3o8A

A pragmatic conservative prioritizes conservative principles -- such as textualism, originalism, limited government, and judicial restraint -- but tempers them with considerations of institutional stability, public perception, and incremental change. Roberts often seeks to balance ideological goals with practical concerns, like preserving the Court’s legitimacy or avoiding overly disruptive rulings. His approach is strategic, favoring narrow decisions that achieve conservative outcomes while minimizing political backlash or overreach.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM (P5BPp)

132 The reason that conservatives complain about Gorsuch/Kav let alone people like Roberts is that every leftist SC judge is a clone that will vote the "right" way on every important decision.

GOP appointees play as if there is nothing in play but obscure bits of legal minutiae and are only marginally concerned with the Constitution.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM (t0Rmr)

133 @97 They came to her one night, approached her in the parking garage, emerged from the shadows, wearing a long overcoat, a brimmed hat, tugged down over the eyes, and handed her an envelope.

In the envelope was pictures of her kids. At school. Coming out of the nanny's house, their doctors' office, the playground where they frolic.

Then said "Be a shame if somefing was ta happen to da little tykes."

That was that.

Posted by: BurtTC

*******************************************

I wonder how many Ray Donovan moments happen in these circles. I would bet you anything they have significant dirt on John Roberts.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM (X+xvk)

134 130 I'm not doing argument by authority. You have fun, though.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:15 PM (GBKbO)

That's not what it is but you have fun asserting it.
Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:17 PM (VofaG)

======

It's textbook argument by authority.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (GBKbO)

135 I f*cking hope not. Let Vance pick in 2029.
Posted by: Maj. Healey at May 23, 2025 03:13 PM (/U5Yz)

You don't want to see Marie Bartiromo on the Supreme Court?

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (dGCAG)

136 I don't really trust the AG article on the "Catholic neocons" any more than I trust the Federalist Society itself. (Adrian Vermeule, however, is solid.)

The fights within the right nowadays are mostly among people I don't much care for. If it weren't for the left, I'd root for casualties.

Posted by: Eeyore at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (od0dV)

137
71 I wish people wouldn't call me Cornhole. That's like private, you know?
Posted by: Amy Cornhole Barrett at May 23, 2025 03:04 PM (paSBy)

-----

Sure thing, Anal.

Posted by: Semi-Literate Thug at May 23, 2025 03:20 PM (ufCEJ)

138 129
I'm convinced there was something about this case (see my comments 1-4 above) that even the conservatives didn't want to go to the mat for.
Posted by: Elric Blade at May

I think it is the Muslim angle, because if you say sure here, how do you say no there?

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:20 PM (pZEOD)

139 Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM (P5BPp)

Those that would surrender freedom for peace have neither .

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:20 PM (VofaG)

140 You don't want to see Marie Bartiromo on the Supreme Court?
Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (dGCAG)

I wouldn't mind seeing her on a bench.

Posted by: ... at May 23, 2025 03:20 PM (dQpco)

141 You don't want to see Marie Bartiromo on the Supreme Court?
Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM

She will be the Fed Chairman.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:21 PM (jc0TO)

142 The fights within the right nowadays are mostly among people I don't much care for. If it weren't for the left, I'd root for casualties.

Like the whole "woke right" pile of crap. I get it that a lot of these people are basically paid by the word, but sometimes its better to just shut up.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:21 PM (2VST1)

143 I want Judge Judy on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:21 PM (jc0TO)

144 >>> Which means the lower court's ruling, which had banned the use of state money to pay for religious schools, stands.

Easy fix for that - Just give the parents the money w/o regardto where they send their kids.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at May 23, 2025 03:21 PM (/lPRQ)

145 Has the President nominated any district or appellate court federal judges since the beginning of his term?

Posted by: mrp at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (rj6Yv)

146 I think it is the Muslim angle, because if you say sure here, how do you say no there?

I am perfectly fine with parents pulling their kids from government schools to put them in schools they like better, no matter who they are.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (2VST1)

147 I've got news for you guys. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing Little Mohammad getting the "proper" jihadist education.
Posted by: Orson at May 23, 2025 03:12 PM (dIske
***
This
However 100% apportionment denial isn't appropriate because there's infrastructure pensions etc ongoing costs. So actual costs okay.
Jihad Johnny funding could be denied on grounds of government masquerading as religion. Sharia law.

Until there is muslim reformation. Don't hold breath.

Posted by: torabora at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (4EcEj)

148 This is why getting rid of the RINO's in the Senate is so important. They will not allow a conservative like Alito or Thomas on the bench.

Posted by: redridinghood at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (NpAcC)

149 The Senate has even voted on all of Trump's appointments to undersecretary yet. Judges, the Dems say televised hearings

Posted by: Smell the Glove at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (O8bOp)

150
Until there is muslim reformation. Don't hold breath.

Salafism was the muslim reformation. The problem is Islam is based on conquest and warfare and has little to with religion in the sense Christians and Jews think of.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:23 PM (t0Rmr)

151 146 I think it is the Muslim angle, because if you say sure here, how do you say no there?

I am perfectly fine with parents pulling their kids from government schools to put them in schools they like better, no matter who they are.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23

But this isn’t school choice, it was a whole charter school funded like a public school.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:23 PM (/sySz)

152 145 Has the President nominated any district or appellate court federal judges since the beginning of his term?
Posted by: mrp at May 23, 2025 03:22 PM (rj6Yv)

=======

I know he didn't for the first couple of months. I think he's just started this month.

https://is.gd/plTNyL

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:23 PM (GBKbO)

153 >>> At this point the TROs are basically an automatic judicial veto on all new policy, and then the courts of appeals decide whether the judicial veto should be suspended. Whatever form of government that is, let�s please not call it �democracy.� https://t.co/75a0u7VYAp

— Adrian Vermeule

====

Pretty sure that is simply "Tyranny", modified with a plethera of tyrants.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at May 23, 2025 03:23 PM (/lPRQ)

154 It's textbook argument by authority.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (GBKbO)

Because you want it to be. It's based on the decisions themselves and not who wrote them.

Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:24 PM (VofaG)

155 I'm convinced there was something about this case (see my comments 1-4 above) that even the conservatives didn't want to go to the mat for.
Posted by: Elric Blade at May

I think it is the Muslim angle, because if you say sure here, how do you say no there?
Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:20 PM (pZEOD)\
_______

You can't say no there. Which is an issue. If the Catholic Church can do it, then Muslims could do it too. That's why the AG opposed it. And, I would think, for every one Catholic school getting state money, there would be a dozen Muslim schools. So is this really what we want?

I'm all in favor of school choice. Maybe school choice should include explicitly religious schools. But, as my grandmother always said, "be careful what you wish for."

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:24 PM (iFTx/)

156 I know he didn't for the first couple of months. I think he's just started this month.

https://is.gd/plTNyL
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025

I am hoping he has been waiting for various District Court judges to prove to him that they should be elevated.

Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:25 PM (jc0TO)

157 Time to slash and burn. Everything. To. The. Ground.
Posted by: Martini Farmer at May 23, 2025 03:16 PM (Q4IgG)

Yes! Yes! Yes No more meetin's! No more discussions! No more Courthouse reach around tricks! You give 'em one message - I want their asses in a sling, to sit down and shut up and get outta my way. If not, it's all-out war, we go to the mattresses.

Posted by: President Donald J. Trump, Shot Caller With All The Keys at May 23, 2025 03:25 PM (R/m4+)

158 3 I want Judge Judy on the Supreme Court.
Posted by: toby928 at May 23, 2025 03:21 PM (jc0TO)
********
Judge Jeanine > Judge Judy

Posted by: redridinghood at May 23, 2025 03:25 PM (NpAcC)

159 Judge Dread > Judge Jeanine > Judge Judy

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:25 PM (t0Rmr)

160 I've got news for you guys. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing Little Mohammad getting the "proper" jihadist education.

What about the tax dollars from Little Muhammad's dad? Is it okay if he uses that money to pay for his son's education?

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (2VST1)

161 Congress is fucking useless. Why do we pay them?

Posted by: Max Power at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (Hucnr)

162 154 It's textbook argument by authority.
Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:19 PM (GBKbO)

Because you want it to be. It's based on the decisions themselves and not who wrote them.
Posted by: polynikes at May 23, 2025 03:24 PM (VofaG)

======

Then you would be saying, "Like on this case where Alito and Thomas argued x, which I agree with, which Gorsuch disagreed with by saying y, which I disagree with," which is arguing the case.

Saying, "Gorsuch disagreed with Thomas and Alito x number of times," is argument by authority.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (GBKbO)

163 His approach is strategic, favoring narrow decisions that achieve conservative outcomes while minimizing political backlash or overreach.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM (P5BPp)

Yeah, I love the way he made a really narrow decision to turn a penalty into a tax to reach that conservative outcome of Obamacare so he could minimize public backlash against himself.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (6ydKt)

164 Congress is fucking useless. Why do we pay them?
Posted by: Max Power at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM

They give you the illusion of choice.

Posted by: The Matrix at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (jc0TO)

165 It's almost as if many judges long to have the 'decision' that makes Dredd Scott look like child's play in kicking off some sort of big loo loo.. ah whatever.

Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (/lPRQ)

166 What about the tax dollars from Little Muhammad's dad? Is it okay if he uses that money to pay for his son's education?

Maine's full of baskets of diversity from Muslim Africa on the welfare dime with their kids in school.

I suspect that in the school where they are a majority there is a lot less globohomo then the rest of Maine's schools so the Muslim thing isn't all bad...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (t0Rmr)

167 163 Yeah, I love the way he made a really narrow decision to turn a penalty into a tax to reach that conservative outcome of Obamacare so he could minimize public backlash against himself.
Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM (6ydKt)

=======

If you take out the ACA, Roberts is a mixed bag.

But you can't take out the ACA, so Roberts generally sucks.

But, he's still better than Souter.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (GBKbO)

168 The Federalist Society is a group of aging RINOs that want to preserve the status quo of the 90s.

We are long, LONG past that point.

Posted by: DudeAbiding at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (lCHt6)

169 But you can't take out the ACA, so Roberts generally sucks.

But, he's still better than Souter.

For the record Souter definitely sucked more and better then Roberts

Posted by: Souter's boyfriend at May 23, 2025 03:28 PM (t0Rmr)

170 Judge Dread > Judge Jeanine > Judge Judy
Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:25 PM (t0Rmr)

I am the law!

Posted by: Judge Reinhold at May 23, 2025 03:29 PM (dGCAG)

171 At least the Muslim schools don't have any of the tranny madness, so there's that.

Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025 03:29 PM (77rzZ)

172
I'm all in favor of school choice. Maybe school choice should include explicitly religious schools. But, as my grandmother always said, "be careful what you wish for."
Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23

This is Alabama’s first year with school choice, or a scholarship if you will, to attend whatever school as well as homeschool, but that amount was smaller. They prioritized low income and special needs for this first year, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I, unfortunately, was not able to apply because the other party who is supposed to parent her doesn’t and wouldn’t help. I really need to figure out a way around that one!

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:29 PM (/sySz)

173
If you take out the ACA, Roberts is a mixed bag.

But you can't take out the ACA, so Roberts generally sucks.

But, he's still better than Souter.

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (GBKbO)

-- -

I just want Roberts to be better than Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, more than occasionally.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:30 PM (6ydKt)

174 173 I just want Roberts to be better than Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson, more than occasionally.
Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:30 PM (6ydKt)

======

Low bar.

*trips*
-Roberts

Posted by: TheJamesMadison, reflecting on change and permanence with Ozu at May 23, 2025 03:30 PM (GBKbO)

175 Democrats just sent the predecessors staff to the gallows. That’s what leftists do. I’d be satisfied if President Trump just sent them to prison.

Posted by: Eromero at May 23, 2025 03:30 PM (jgmnb)

176 171 At least the Muslim schools don't have any of the tranny madness, so there's that.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025

Nope, they just don’t educate girls and dress them in trash bags. Heck, in Afghanistan, you can’t even show your eyes anymore! What is next? Triple covering?

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:31 PM (/sySz)

177 The left was all set to start doing random oopsie shootings of justices during and right after the Roe decision. The court has been drifting left ever since.

So it seems they are not immune to such tactics

Posted by: Rando Calrissian at May 23, 2025 03:31 PM (MFVNc)

178
Nope, they just don’t educate girls and dress them in trash bags. Heck, in Afghanistan, you can’t even show your eyes anymore! What is next? Triple covering?

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Posted by: Tony Fauci at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (t0Rmr)

179 So how is Trump expected to keep on "Biden" appointments when those appointments were not Biden's but some cabal who had access to the Auto Pen?

Is the Supreme Court ready to rule that unelected saboteurs have greater claim to Executive Authority than the POTUS?

Posted by: Unknown Drip Under Pressure at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (a4flb)

180 Yeah, just sodomy. Ant the goat thing.

Posted by: Eromero at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (jgmnb)

181 Monkeys flinging poo at photos of judges pinned to the wall could have picked nominees better than Trump’s three Ivy League frauds.

Posted by: The Poo Monkey Association at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (JcBSN)

182 The left was all set to start doing random oopsie shootings of justices during and right after the Roe decision. The court has been drifting left ever since.

To borrow from Heinlein violence is obviously an easy way to resolve conflicts.

The morality of using it is a different matter, but it sure as hell works.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:33 PM (t0Rmr)

183 Neocons are 100 percent enemies now, they were well captured by 2008 or so when color revolutions were in vogue.

Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2025 03:33 PM (8avO+)

184 Mohammed was tight, all right and we rode him all night.

Call us Mohammed!

Posted by: The Men Of al-Zutt at May 23, 2025 03:34 PM (R/m4+)

185 If you are going to stop credentialed elites from
running the country, you're going to need to stop going to credentialed elites for advice on nominations. On judges, you need to find nominees who are very skeptical of the legal profession--a rare breed.

Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at May 23, 2025 03:34 PM (4/BuS)

186 Mohammed was tight, all right and we rode him all night.

Call us Mohammed!/i]

One of the more amusing things about Islam is that there are all sorts of horrible stories in their own holy books that apparently no one, not even most muslims, bother to read.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:35 PM (t0Rmr)

187 At least the Muslim schools don't have any of the tranny madness, so there's that.
Posted by: Bulg at May 23, 2025

Nope, they just don’t educate girls and dress them in trash bags. Heck, in Afghanistan, you can’t even show your eyes anymore! What is next? Triple covering?
Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:31 PM (/sySz)
________

In Afghanistan, girls are not allowed to go to school at all, not matter how they dress. Nuts.

Posted by: Elric Blade at May 23, 2025 03:35 PM (iFTx/)

188 ustices hinted at preserving protections for some officials, like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Nice. The Federal Reserve Act enters the scene.

Posted by: t-bird at May 23, 2025 03:35 PM (SnwCX)

189 It's almost as if many judges long to have the 'decision' that makes Dredd Scott look like child's play in kicking off some sort of big loo loo.. ah whatever.
Posted by: Itinerant Alley Butcher at May 23, 2025 03:27 PM (/lPRQ)

Tough to beat "Lets make Republican Policy Unconstitutional and extend slavery nationwide."

Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2025 03:36 PM (8avO+)

190
In Afghanistan, girls are not allowed to go to school at all, not matter how they dress. Nuts.

I remember before 9/11 that NOW and the like were claiming the only reason that the US didn't militarily intervene in 'Stan was misogyny.

Of course then Shrub went over there and did so and overnight he was misogynist for killing Afghan women because as we all know, women have always suffered the most from war.

I suspect we'll hear soon Trump is also a misogynist for not doing anything about the Taliban as well from Western feminists

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:37 PM (t0Rmr)

191 Is the Supreme Court ready to rule that unelected saboteurs have greater claim to Executive Authority than the POTUS?
Posted by: Unknown Drip Under Pressure at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (a4flb)
----
*shakes Magic 8 Ball* "Signs point to Yes"

Posted by: "Perfessor" Squirrel at May 23, 2025 03:38 PM (GlyvH)

192 On judges, you need to find nominees who are very skeptical of the legal profession--a rare breed.
Posted by: bear with asymmetrical balls at May 23, 2025 03:34 PM (4/BuS)

Yeah, I've long argued no judge should ever have gone to law school.

Not just being facetious, it should be possible for the lawyers to have to tell the judge, when he rules on some point of the law, what law they are citing when requesting/challenging his ruling. If both lawyers come up with separate laws that seem to contradict each other, then so be it. Let the non-lawyer decide.

Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:38 PM (dGCAG)

193 Let us not forget that Mitch McConnell was the lead on finding potential justices- this was a huge red flag highlighting getting questionable outcomes. That said, our conservative justices are more hit than miss. We just tend not to view it that way at the time.

Except Obamacare. That one was awful and there is no other way to look at it.

Posted by: Piper at May 23, 2025 03:38 PM (/sySz)

194 "Justices hinted at preserving protections for some officials, like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell."

Good. Trump wants to devalue my savings by pumping more fake dollars in? He can FOAD.

Posted by: deepelemblues at May 23, 2025 03:39 PM (Ah86q)

195 So how is Trump expected to keep on "Biden" appointments when those appointments were not Biden's but some cabal who had access to the Auto Pen?

Is the Supreme Court ready to rule that unelected saboteurs have greater claim to Executive Authority than the POTUS?
Posted by: Unknown Drip Under Pressure at May 23, 2025 03:32 PM (a4flb)

To date, they just have more rights than citizens because they can get 24-7 personal service and advice on not losing cases without the government rep even being notified or present.

Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2025 03:39 PM (8avO+)

196 Our laws were originally designed to by understood by everyone and since the government will prosecute you for an honest misunderstand of the law they should still be.

Most of the reason we are in this cycle of "only lawyers can be judges" is because we've allowed lawyers and judges to construct a legalistic structure where things don't mean what they say and you better know that before we haul you off to jail...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:40 PM (t0Rmr)

197 Eric Rodriguez, dad of suspected terrorist Elias Rodriguez was invited to Trump address by left-wing Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.)

Posted by: SMOD at May 23, 2025 03:40 PM (GITLP)

198 In Afghanistan, girls are not allowed to go to school at all, not matter how they dress. Nuts.

Posted by: Elric Blade

They also dress little boys up as girls and gang-rape them, and their religion seems to allow everything from mass murder to fucking goats....

Happily, Joe Biden left them about eight billion dollars worth of American weaponry, so we have that going for us.

Posted by: Sam Adams at May 23, 2025 03:40 PM (X+xvk)

199 Once again, the key problem is that all this system relies on maturity, honor, and virtue. Remember Schumer talking about lying and then saying "it worked didn't it?" when called on it? Think about the rulings by the far left justices which have no basis on logic or law. All the failures to recuse. If you have no honor and you have no decency, why NOT violate it all, there is no real cost.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at May 23, 2025 03:08 PM

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Posted by: John Adams at May 23, 2025 03:40 PM (P5BPp)

200 Not just being facetious, it should be possible for the lawyers to have to tell the judge, when he rules on some point of the law, what law they are citing when requesting/challenging his ruling. If both lawyers come up with separate laws that seem to contradict each other, then so be it. Let the non-lawyer decide.
Posted by: BurtTC at May 23, 2025 03:38 PM (dGCAG)

In some of these cases they don't cite any law at all and ignore laws that say the opposite, much less the constitution.

Posted by: Oldcat at May 23, 2025 03:41 PM (8avO+)

201 Nood NIH.

Posted by: Kratwurst at May 23, 2025 03:41 PM (nIRE6)

202 One of the more amusing things about Islam is that there are all sorts of horrible stories in their own holy books that apparently no one, not even most muslims, bother to read.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 23, 2025 03:35 PM (t0Rmr)

--------------

You know who else had a book that apparently no one bothered to read?

Posted by: ShainS -- Hang 'Em Nigh! at May 23, 2025 03:43 PM (nasUx)

203 I want their asses in a sling, to sit down and shut up and get outta my way. If not, it's all-out war, we go to the mattresses.

That's gay.

Posted by: Commissar of plenty and festive little hats at May 23, 2025 03:49 PM (LC6cI)

204 I agree federalist society sucks but what’s the alternative for picking judges?

Best I can see is you only go by published opinions but you need a lengthy track record to give the candidate time to prove his cred in real cases.

Posted by: Jack Squat Bupkis at May 23, 2025 03:52 PM (dQfJF)

205 Best I can see is you only go by published opinions but you need a lengthy track record to give the candidate time to prove his cred in real cases.

AI enters the chat

Posted by: Unknown Drip Under Pressure at May 23, 2025 03:53 PM (a4flb)

206 His approach is strategic, favoring narrow decisions that achieve conservative outcomes while minimizing political backlash or overreach.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:18 PM

Yeah, I love the way he made a really narrow decision to turn a penalty into a tax to reach that conservative outcome of Obamacare so he could minimize public backlash against himself.

Posted by: SpeakingOf at May 23, 2025 03:26 PM

Minimizing *political* backlash. E.g., minimizing Democrat backlash against him, leftist activist backlash, leftist media backlash, leftist social media backlash, leftist domestic terrorist backlash, etc.

He doesn't care what the general public thinks of him. They pose no threat to him.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at May 23, 2025 03:58 PM (P5BPp)

207 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.
Posted by: American Hawkman
-----
I've wondered why they haven't tried something like that
Posted by: It's me donna

GOPe. asshoes gotta/gonna asshoe

Posted by: BifBewalski at May 23, 2025 04:22 PM (JG1ZJ)

208 At this point, I want to see a Trump judge issue a nationwide injunction on any other court doing so, and let's just FORCE the issue.
Posted by: American Hawkman

Arrest them for insurrection. It's time to get serious.

Posted by: Brother Tim (102mm/W59), Keeper of the Tim Continuum at May 23, 2025 04:39 PM (OUMaO)

209

All the bad judges on the conservative side typically have ties to the federal society. All of the good judges on the conservative side also have ties to the Federal society. It's simply a clearing house for conservative judges. There are as many rinos and neocons in the fedsoc as there are conservative populists and Goofy libertarians. Surprise surprise though, judges tend to come from more upper class backgrounds, and upper class backgrounds tend to be more moderate in their conservatism. This should hardly come as a shock to anyone.

Posted by: imp at May 23, 2025 05:07 PM (g6TN6)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0225 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0084 seconds, 218 records returned.
Page size 131 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.