Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little

Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
26 Posts 9 Posters 182 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • HoraceH Offline
    HoraceH Offline
    Horace
    wrote on last edited by
    #15

    Justice Alito and his fellow dissenters were stunned.

    JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting from the denial of the application to vacate order.
    Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf

    Education is extremely important.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • jon-nycJ Online
      jon-nycJ Online
      jon-nyc
      wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
      #16

      Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.

      Only non-witches get due process.

      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
      HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nycJ Online
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by
        #17

        He says this like its a bad thing.

        (though to be clear I doubt its true)

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nycJ Online
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #18

          Also Kavanaugh was hardly looking at him admiringly.

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

            Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.

            HoraceH Offline
            HoraceH Offline
            Horace
            wrote on last edited by
            #19

            @jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:

            Odd for a member of the Supreme Court who just formally reviewed the lower court’s order to call it an ‘unchecked power’.

            The decision he's reacting sets precedent which gives this unchecked power to the lower courts to do this thing.

            Education is extremely important.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

              He says this like its a bad thing.

              (though to be clear I doubt its true)

              HoraceH Offline
              HoraceH Offline
              Horace
              wrote on last edited by
              #20

              @jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:

              He says this like its a bad thing.

              (though to be clear I doubt its true)

              Body language and facial expression dunks, as dunks go, are bottom-tier.

              Education is extremely important.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nycJ Online
                jon-nyc
                wrote on last edited by
                #21

                No it would always and forever be appealable to the Supreme Court.

                Only non-witches get due process.

                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
                • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                  No it would always and forever be appealable to the Supreme Court.

                  HoraceH Offline
                  HoraceH Offline
                  Horace
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #22

                  @jon-nyc said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:

                  No it would always and forever be appealable to the Supreme Court.

                  Oh, you found an absolute, categorical way to read Alito's words so that they're completely absurd, and indicative of a total lack of basic knowledge of the law. That's reasonable.

                  Education is extremely important.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ Online
                    jon-nycJ Online
                    jon-nyc
                    wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                    #23

                    He was emoting, not reasoning. So yeah, the more partisan justices can be found to say some odd things some times. The top two partisans, he and Sotomayor, have both been guilty of it more than others.

                    Only non-witches get due process.

                    • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • 89th8 Online
                      89th8 Online
                      89th
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #24

                      The bigger drama is Trump saying to Roberts "Thank you, I won't forget it" as if Roberts did him a favor (maybe he did). Scandal! (not really)

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • JollyJ Jolly

                        Yep, the rumor is that Dems have some compromising material on Robert's.

                        As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.

                        taiwan_girlT Offline
                        taiwan_girlT Offline
                        taiwan_girl
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #25

                        @Jolly said in Supreme Court Smacks Trump Around A Little:

                        As for Barrett, I'm disappointed in several of her rulings.

                        You are not teh only one. LOL

                        Amy Coney Barrett's conservative credentials ought to be impeccable. The Supreme Court justice was appointed to her seat by President Donald Trump during his first term, and she provided one of the votes that overturned Roe v. Wade. But recent cases indicate she is not an automatic vote for the president's priorities, and she is drawing the right's scrutiny as a result.

                        Barrett may be the "crucial vote in Trump cases," said The New York Times. She was the only one of three justices appointed by Trump who voted against his administration's emergency request to freeze foreign aid, providing the critical margin in the 5-4 ruling against the president. The result suggested Trump cannot count on the court's 6-3 conservative supermajority to back "every element of his efforts to expand the authority of the executive branch." That has enraged some conservatives. "The power has gone to her head," said conservative podcaster Mark Levin.

                        Barrett's vote on the foreign aid freeze "sparked a MAGA meltdown," said The Daily Beast. Barrett, the lone woman conservative justice, is "another DEI hire," said Trumpist influencer Mike Cernovich. Other influential activists on the Trumpist right echoed those criticisms. Barrett's vote is "a big problem," said journalist Eric Daugherty.

                        https://theweek.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-maga-votes-supreme-court

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins DadL Offline
                          LuFins Dad
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #26

                          LOL, I love this misconception…

                          "every element of his efforts to expand the authority of the executive branch.

                          The guy is limiting the scope of the Executive Branches. He’s reducing their roles. He’s actually weakening the Executive agencies.

                          The Brad

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Don't have an account? Register

                          • Login or register to search.
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Tags
                          • Popular
                          • Users
                          • Groups