SCOTUS Catch-all |

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 586
  • Views: 22K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
200.gif

As I said, 8 to 1.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that she's incorporating her feelings about Trump into her decision, when she should be talking about constitutional interpretations, past decisions, etc to ultimately determine if Trump's executive order was lawful. Her opinion of his actions are irrelevant... Or they should be irrelevant, just as the amount of melanin in her skin is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Serious question -- did you actually read Jackson's dissent? Because she starts with the constitutional implications of Trump's actions and the majority's decision in her very first paragraph --

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this powerto himself. With no mention of congressional buy-in, the President’s Executive Order No. 14210 mandates a “critical transformation” of the Federal Government, to be accomplished by “eliminat[ing] or consolidat[ing]” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” 90 Fed. Reg. 9669, 9670.
 
lawtig02 said:
Serious question -- did you actually read Jackson's dissent? Because she starts with the constitutional implications of Trump's actions and the majority's decision in her very first paragraph --

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. The President sharply departed from that settled practice on February 11, 2025, however, by allegedly arrogating this powerto himself. With no mention of congressional buy-in, the President’s Executive Order No. 14210 mandates a “critical transformation” of the Federal Government, to be accomplished by “eliminat[ing] or consolidat[ing]” existing agencies and ordering agency heads to “promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force.” 90 Fed. Reg. 9669, 9670.
Click to expand...
Yes, I read it. I was also "confused" with other things she wrote, including what you posted.
 
lawtig02 said:
Ok. Just so you know, nothing in that paragraph is even remotely confusing to people who understand the basics of constitutional law.
Click to expand...
Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.
 
ZenMode said:
Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.
Click to expand...
Oh, NOW I see the issue. You're confusing her commentary on constitutional separation of powers issues (i.e., whether the president has the constitutional power to slash federal agencies established and funded by Congress without congressional approval) with her commentary on the Supreme Court's internal practices (whether it's appropriate for SCOTUS to stay a district court order based on an undeveloped factual record).

That confusion is a little more understandable for a nonlawyer, but as before, the issue here is not with KBJ. It's with you.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Well, there's a reason I put "confusing" in quotes and it's not because I was actually confused. She seems to believe that Congress having the Constitutional power to do X somehow equals the President not having the Constitutional power to do X or Y.

She had an agenda, which is made clear in the excerpt I originally posted. She has emotions about Trump and what he is doing and her dissent is trying to justify those emotions.

She started with the conclusion she wanted and worked backwards from there, IMO.
Click to expand...

What you really meant to put in quotes is "silly hysterical woman". You know, the one who is way more educated and accomplished than any of us.
 
“The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law present a U.S. Supreme Court review symposium featuring leading constitutional law scholars and commentators analyzing the Court’s most significant rulings of the term. Participants include Jonathan Adler, Jess Bravin, Jan Crawford, Daniel Epps, Sarah Isgur, Frederick Lawrence, Fred Smith Jr., Stephen Vladeck, Daniel Walters, and Keith Whittington. In addition to discussing recent decisions, panelists will explore the role of the media, the president, and other political actors in shaping public perceptions of the Court. Moderators and special guest speakers include Robert Ahdieh and Katherine Mims Crocker of Texas A&M University School of Law, Neil Siegel of Duke Law School, and Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center.

This program is presented in partnership with the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law.”
2025 Supreme Court Review: Key Rulings, Public Perceptions, and Constitutional Debates - Town Hall Video | Constitution Center


RECORDING AT THE LINK ABOVE.
 
lawtig02 said:
Oh, NOW I see the issue. You're confusing her commentary on constitutional separation of powers issues (i.e., whether the president has the constitutional power to slash federal agencies established and funded by Congress without congressional approval) with her commentary on the Supreme Court's internal practices (whether it's appropriate for SCOTUS to stay a district court order based on an undeveloped factual record).

That confusion is a little more understandable for a nonlawyer, but as before, the issue here is not with KBJ. It's with you.
Click to expand...
And apparently 8 other Supreme Court Justices....
 
Huh? said:
What you really meant to put in quotes is "silly hysterical woman". You know, the one who is way more educated and accomplished than any of us.
Click to expand...
Nah, I meant what I said. She started with the conclusion she wanted, based on her feelings about Trump (as expressed in her dissent), and worked backward from there using bad reasoning, i.e. "Congress can Constitutionally do X, so that means the President can't also Constitutionally do X or Y".
 
ZenMode said:
Nah, I meant what I said. She started with the conclusion she wanted, based on her feelings about Trump (as expressed in her dissent), and worked backward from there using bad reasoning, i.e. "Congress can Constitutionally do X, so that means the President can't also Constitutionally do X or Y".
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you keep doubling down on your incorrect characterization of her argument, but you do you I guess.
 
It really was foolish of me to think that Conservatives who have been failures in their own lives would somehow of stopped blaming women for their own life failures and shortcomings by claiming women are hysterical and unbalanced when they don't get their way. I think the psychological term is "projection"
Link: Psychological projection - Wikipedia
 
ZenMode said:
Because her dissent is rife with emotion. That emotion is why she's all alone on this one.
Click to expand...
Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with your mischaracterization of her disagreement with the majority. Can we expect a comment from you here anytime a justice writes something that is "rife with emotion"? Or are you reserving that critique only for the liberal women?
 
lawtig02 said:
Even if that's true, it has nothing to do with your mischaracterization of her disagreement with the majority. Can we expect a comment from you here anytime a justice writes something that is "rife with emotion"? Or are you reserving that critique only for the liberal women?
Click to expand...
For the record, it's only you and superrific who are bringing race and sex into this discussion.

I'm talking about the content of what was written. I don't care about melanin, chromosomes or genitals.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top