Official SCOTUS / Trump Administration Thread

2,401 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by bearister
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:44p, 3/7/25
Amy Coney Barrett getting hammered by MAGA Morons.

She voted with liberal justices (and John Roberts) in a 5 - 4 vote against Trump being able to "freeze" foreign aid under a temporary order given by a lower court. SCOTUS did not disturb this temporary order. They simply asked the lower court for clarification of their order and left it in place for the time being. That's not really an extraordinary act, by any means.

They said that Trump and the Executive Branch CANNOT seize money that they had already directed him to spend for work that was already done.

SCOTUS also gave guidance to a lower court to ensure that these $2 Billion in funds be used as designated.
This is a major set-back for the Trump Administration.

MAGA WORLD not happy with this decision.

But for some reason, they aren't critical of John Roberts who also voted with Barrett and the majority.
Just Barrett, a Mom of 7 and a Notre Dame Law School Graduate.

I guess white women are the target now and part of the DEI narrative.
Maggots are saying that she's "weak" she's "timid" she's "bitter" and a DEI hire.




Reply Quote
4
9 edits
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 12:31a, 3/13/25
DiabloWags said:
Amy Coney Barrett getting hammered by MAGA Morons.

Trump SCOTUS picks and their families have been receiving death threats from left wing nutjobs ever since they were nominated.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
chazzed
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 11:29a, 3/13/25
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?
Reply Quote
2
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to chazzed • 12:29p, 3/13/25
chazzed said:
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?


Do you think Trump's justice department will overcharge them like Biden overcharged his political enemies?
Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:00p, 3/13/25
oski003 said:
chazzed said:
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?


Do you think Trump's justice department will overcharge them like Biden overcharged his political enemies?
I'm thinking Trump will overcharge his new red pity Tesla that he will likely never drive.
Reply Quote
1
oski003
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 1:33p, 3/13/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
chazzed said:
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?


Do you think Trump's justice department will overcharge them like Biden overcharged his political enemies?
I'm thinking Trump will overcharge his new red pity Tesla that he will likely never drive.


Teslas are smart, sophisticated vehicles, unlike what the prejudiced stable genius left and cranky wsj parrots would have you believe. I doubt Trump's Tesla will be overcharged.
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oski003 • 1:57p, 3/13/25
oski003 said:
chazzed said:
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?


Do you think Trump's justice department will overcharge them like Biden overcharged his political enemies?


The difference being there will be no guilty pleas or verdicts since Trump's enemies only committed crimes in his paranoid state delusions…..and if they did commit crimes, Trump's personal Justice Department will be hard pressed to field a competent prosecutor since those types have a tendency not to work for convicted felons….only incompetent boot licking loyalist ideologues are willing to do that.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:46p, 3/13/25
"Well-funded MAGA forces close to the White House are preparing a "100-year plan" to try to sustain Trumpism long after President Trump leaves office.

Why it matters: Top executives at the America First Policy Institute tell Mike and Axios' Tal Axelrod that the group is scaling up as an incubator for the America First movement beyond Jan. 20, 2029 promising to proselytize its policies for the next century."

Well, The Thousand Year Reich lasted 12 years. How long ya give this one?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 3:12p, 3/13/25
A few things...

Reporting on SCOTUS action is amazingly simplistic and not helpful. Dumbing things down for the masses really doesn't tell us what they did and why. I haven't read this decision (and don't plan to) so I don't know on this one.

I think it is generally understood/accepted that conservative Chief Justices sometimes get pulled left because of their inclination to think about the institution and not just the law. Still, conservatives have been PISSED at Roberts in the past. See Obamacare (Roberts was a ****ing idiot in that case, IMO).

Conservatives are freaking sick and tired of 'losing' justices post confirmation to leftward movement. There would be ire toward any of them doing it, not just Barrett, and not just Barrett because she's a w/f.
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 5:47p, 3/13/25
Anyone goin' after ACB is messin' with the wrong bull 'cause she got them Crazy Eyes!


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
calpoly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 9:20p, 3/13/25
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
oski003 said:
chazzed said:
Without question, the legal system should deal with those people. Do you think Trump would pardon them as he did the J6 domestic terrorists, though?


Do you think Trump's justice department will overcharge them like Biden overcharged his political enemies?
I'm thinking Trump will overcharge his new red pity Tesla that he will likely never drive.
Does tRump even know how to drive? Does he have a license?
Reply Quote
1
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:03a, 6/3/25
Supreme Court declines to hear gun-control challenges - SCOTUSblog


https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-gun-control-challenges/

"After considering them at 15 consecutive conferences, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up two challenges to gun-control laws in Maryland and Rhode Island. In each case, three justices indicated that they would have granted the petition for review, leaving the challengers one vote short of the four needed for the court to hear oral argument….

…..the court declined to decide whether Maryland's ban on semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15 and the AK-47, violates the Second Amendment's right to bear arms……

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch indicated that they would have granted the challengers' petition……

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of review. Because AR-15s are "arms," he reasoned, the Maryland law can only be upheld if the state can show that its ban is consistent with the country's historical tradition of gun regulation."

*Alito and Thomas were the only dissenters in a ghost gun case. Thank God they can count on Neil "The most wondrous sound in nature is my voice speaking" Gorsuch when they need him.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:34p, 6/6/25
DOGE given access to Americans' Social Security data by Supreme Court

"DOGE employees can access millions of Americans' sensitive Social Security data, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a party-line decision.

Why it matters: The ruling is a win for other Trump administration, which has charged the Department of Government Efficiency with rooting out alleged waste and fraud at the Social Security Administration.

The unsigned majority opinion overturns a 9-6 decision from the entire Fourth Circuit that upheld a lower court's decision to temporarily block DOGE from accessing the data.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, who issued the initial stay, had questioned why DOGE needed "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems."

Friction point: The Supreme Court's three Democratically-appointed justices voted to prevent DOGE from accessing the Social Security data until lower courts have had a chance to resolve legal challenges.

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent joined by Justice Sonya Sotomayor that chastised the Supreme Court for once again issuing an emergency order in favor of the Trump administration without the benefit of briefing or oral argument.

What they're saying: "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," Jackson wrote.

"[O]nce again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Jackson wrote."
Axios
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
3
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:14p, 6/6/25
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
3
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:52a, 6/7/25
Do you think any of the DOGE army of computer wizards that are loyal to Musk may use this access to extract payback for their liege lord?*


*If they have a suggestion box, how about starting with Thomas and Alito? Asking for a friend, Big C.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:54a, 6/27/25
It is feeling a lot like this in America right now for people of goodwill and conscience:



The bad guys are winning. It's Winter in America.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
2
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:09p, 6/27/25

Huge win for Trump and the American people.
Reply Quote
1
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PAC-10-BEAR • 12:38p, 6/27/25
bear2034 said:

Huge win for Trump and the American people.
Apparently the new legal standard is no national injunctions unless the plaintiff's case could be filed as a class action, with plaintiffs in other jurisdictions having suffered similar damages/injuries. What is the standard for filing a class action suit? Does this new standard materially change things?
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 1:04p, 6/27/25
tequila4kapp said:
bear2034 said:

Huge win for Trump and the American people.
Apparently the new legal standard is no national injunctions unless the plaintiff's case could be filed as a class action, with plaintiffs in other jurisdictions having suffered similar damages/injuries. What is the standard for filing a class action suit? Does this new standard materially change things?

The SCOTUS ruling does not explicitly mandate that nationwide injunctions can only be issued if a case could be filed as a class action; rather, it emphasizes that injunctions must be narrowly tailored to provide relief only to the plaintiffs with standing, unless a broader remedy is justified.

See bearister's upcoming response for details regarding the prerequisites and requirements that must be met to file a class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47p, 6/27/25
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 1:56p, 6/27/25
DiabloWags said:
Amy Coney Barrett getting hammered by MAGA Morons.

Was Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination for the court legitimate if Biden was cognitively disabled at the time?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:37p, 6/27/25
I'm sure Amy Coney Barrett has had a couple of boiled pet rabbits show up on her stovetop recently.




Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1 edit
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:46p, 6/27/25
Trump 'nauseatingly' gushes over 'beautiful' African reporter and admits his career could end


https://www.irishstar.com/news/us-news/trump-nauseatingly-gushes-over-beautiful-35466105?utm_source=app

Between this and the F bombs, Trump is presenting like a senile old man unable to avoid inappropriate conduct on the international stage.Trump is a 50 cent cab ride from Bush the Elder goosing young women from his wheelchair.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49p, 6/27/25
Next time Dems have the Presidency, it's time for an executive order mandating that everyone turn in their guns.

No national injunction! Sure, it might get overturned by SCOTUS months later but we'll have all the guns by then.
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 8:55p, 6/27/25
sycasey said:
Next time Dems have the Presidency, it's time for an executive order mandating that everyone turn in their guns.

No national injunction! Sure, it might get overturned by SCOTUS months later but we'll have all the guns by then.


"Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts.* But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all.

Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/27/us-supreme-court-trump-powers?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

*Republicans think it's quaint that anyone thinks they give a flying f@uck when someone points out their hypocrisy. They actually enjoy it because it underscores the power they have to grind decent people's faces into the cobblestones.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Anarchistbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 9:00p, 6/27/25
This is your rule of law.
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Anarchistbear • 9:04p, 6/27/25
You are an insightful debater.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 4:22a, 6/28/25
The line about Roberts is misleading, as is the implication there's been an equal use of national injunctions. These are a new development in the law, overwhelmingly used in the last @25 years (the 1st one was in 1963). This is the 1st case where national injunctions themselves were challenged to SCOTUS.

Total injunctions vs Bush: 6
Total injunctions vs Obama / Biden: 26
Total injunctions vs Trump (1st Admin): 64
Total injunctions vs Trump (2nd Admin): 25 through 4/25/25

55% of injunctions vs Bush/Obama were issued by judges appointed by the opposing party president. That number jumps to 94% vs Biden/Trump1.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/


Reply Quote
3
6 edits
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 8:02a, 6/28/25
"As of June 23, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) had signed 165 executive orders, 45 memoranda, and 70 proclamations in his second presidential term, which began on January 20, 2025."
https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump%27s_executive_orders_and_actions,_2025

President Obama averaged 35 Executive Orders per year. President Biden, 40. Trump, 165 in 6 months.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-executive-orders-has-each-president-signed/

*Nice try, however.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 10:37a, 6/28/25
bearister said:
"As of June 23, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) had signed 165 executive orders, 45 memoranda, and 70 proclamations in his second presidential term, which began on January 20, 2025."
https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump%27s_executive_orders_and_actions,_2025

President Obama averaged 35 Executive Orders per year. President Biden, 40. Trump, 165 in 6 months.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-executive-orders-has-each-president-signed/

*Nice try, however.

Biden signed 162 EOs and had 14 injunctions issued against him.
Trump's 165 EOs this term result in 25 injunctions through the end of April.
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17p, 6/28/25


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 12:32p, 6/28/25
tequila4kapp said:
bearister said:
"As of June 23, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) had signed 165 executive orders, 45 memoranda, and 70 proclamations in his second presidential term, which began on January 20, 2025."
https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump%27s_executive_orders_and_actions,_2025

President Obama averaged 35 Executive Orders per year. President Biden, 40. Trump, 165 in 6 months.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-executive-orders-has-each-president-signed/

*Nice try, however.

Biden signed 162 EOs and had 14 injunctions issued against him.
Trump's 165 EOs this term result in 25 injunctions through the end of April.

Perhaps your statistic is explained by the fact that Trump's EO's push the boundaries of the reach of executive power and run afoul of the Constitution and the rule of law.

How Many of Trump's Executive Orders Are Being Challenged? | National News | U.S. News


https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/how-many-of-trumps-executive-orders-are-being-challenged
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention

“I love Cal deeply. What are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Reply Quote
1
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:02p, 6/28/25
Reply Quote
2
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 1:17p, 6/28/25
bearister said:
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent joined by Justice Sonya Sotomayor that chastised the Supreme Court for once again issuing an emergency order in favor of the Trump administration without the benefit of briefing or oral argument.
Reply Quote
3
PAC-10-BEAR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Anarchistbear • 1:23p, 6/28/25
Anarchistbear said:
This is your rule of law.
Say bye to Democrat lawfare.
Reply Quote
2
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.