BREAKING NEWS: Arsonists deny they started a fire

[superrific]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/04/amy-coney-barret-constitutional-crisis-00545956

Amy Coney Barrett says there is no constitutional crisis. She also says, "I don’t know what a constitutional crisis would look like"

Well, one test of a constitutional crisis is whether the Supreme Court justices know what a constitutional crisis would look like. Because every first year law student in Con Law knows what it would look like.

Another test is whether the president says "I can do whatever I want," does that, and the Supreme Court stays orders without explanation to stop him from doing that. 16 times in a row. Even orders that he disobeyed, which is supposed to automatically defeat any appeal or stay request.

I hate that bitch. Let's check in on Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/04/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-rulings-cryptic-00545357

"I’m fully aware THAT can lead to a lack of clarity in the law and can lead to some confusion, at times." THAT being stay orders that are not precedential, and usually announced with either no explanation or one cursory explanation, and then scolding of the judges who are trying to apply actual precedent.

"Consistency is a lot easier when it’s one person than when it’s nine. We try to be consistent. … We can do better. We’re always trying to do better"

Oh, you mean you can do better than ZERO explanation? Don't tell us you're trying to do better when you are literally doing the worst thing possible. And no, consistency is not easier when it's one than when it's 9. Justices should know how to follow the law. They've done it for centuries. Sure, if you're making it all up as you go, then it might be hard. But even then maybe you could at least individually be consistent?

I hate him more than ACB. It is astonishing that these mental midgets made it to the Supreme Court. At least ACB doesn't gaslight constantly like Kav.

 

[nycfan]

I deeply dislike Kavanaugh and hate what the conservative majority is doing to this country directly and via the shadow docket, but I don’t think they are “mental midgets”. They are not ignorantly misapplying the law, they are intentionally and radically revising decades of precedent to suit their political agenda, even when it means undermining the federal judiciary, the balance of power and the rule of law. They know exactly what they are doing and are fully responsible for their decisions.

 

[superrific]

I deeply dislike Kavanaugh and hate what the conservative majority is doing to this country directly and via the shadow docket, but I don’t think they are “mental midgets”. They are not ignorantly misapplying the law, they are intentionally and radically revising decades of precedent to suit their political agenda, even when it means undermining the federal judiciary, the balance of power and the rule of law. They know exactly what they are doing and are fully responsible for their decisions.

Sure, but then why does he say such bullshit like "we're trying to do better" when he's literally offering zero guidance to the district courts. I have never seen a Supreme Court expect a district court to follow an unreasoned order. Hell, unreasoned orders themselves are exceedingly rare.

I mean, we don't have to choose. He's a mental midget and also knows exactly what he's doing. The latter is a property of the former, at least in part.

 

[ZenMode]

It seems like a lot of this current hype involves Trump's use of "emergency" powers. What is/isn't an emergency is very subjective.

 

[Oddball]

This the Roberts "Coward Court", really would hope to see it tagged as such by the public...

 

[superrific]

It seems like a lot of this current hype involves Trump's use of "emergency" powers. What is/isn't an emergency is very subjective.

No it is not. At the margins, perhaps. But if crime has been declining for three decades, it can't be an emergency. A trade deficit is never an emergency, and again, the trade deficit has been around for decades, so again not an emergency.

And no, the problem with SCOTUS is not just the emergency powers. It's making up new rules as they go in order to justify doing what they want for other reasons. Like when they gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution. Or dismantled the voting rights act. Or just this year, when they stayed orders preventing the illegal firing of independent agency heads. Or when they stole money already granted to climate groups and won't let them have it (despite it being the property of those groups). Or when they decided that any transaction with the federal government is in the nature of contract, when decades of precedent says that the intentional withholding of allocated funds is a tort (and this is an extremely significant distinction).

There is no defending this SCOTUS, which is why its allies have started pointing fingers at the district courts for being rebellious. Yes, they had the temerity to apply the applicable precedent, not the non-precedent that was not announced by the Supreme Court other than "the order is stayed." What defiance!