Trump went off on the U.S. Supreme Court after it prevented him from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportations of Venezuelans being detained in Texas.
The supreme court is particularly difficult to actually control. Each has their own beliefs and they’re appointed for life. Thomas for example is fully on board with maga and will take bribes. But kavenaugh is pretty far right but generally seems to believe in the constitution in some form and wants the courts to keep power. Barrett is extremely right wing but is catholic before maga and it seems they’re learning that the hard way recently.
This should have been 9-0. We’re seeing a lot of 7-2 against Trump right now because he’s blatantly violating the constitution. And the court to a certain degree trusts that when they say no, they have enough understanding with the military that when everything is said and done the military will want to have done what the court says as it’s the legitimate governing body acting in accordance with the rules.
Barrett is an interesting one. She was there to provide a woman’s voice against abortion. That job is done now. She was expected to line up with everything else in MAGA, but she’s slowly realizing what a hell hole that is. Like Serena Waterford discovering that this isn’t the world she wanted after all.
The idea is thst they’re supposed to be non partisan voices of the law. And we’re seeing both sides of all of that. For a long time they’ve been partisan, but lifetime appointments mean that they can tell Trump to fuck off in a way congress can’t. It’s significant to note thst the two justices that keep voting with Trump weren’t appointed by him. He appointed kavenaugh, gorsuch, and Barrett. And none of them seem to like him. Meanwhile Thomas has been on the court for decades but his wife is a major figure in maga.
Yeah, thats something that I think needs to change. To many times people sit on that bench until they are almost dead, and I dont like people like that making the laws. Just like I think there should be term limits on Congress
Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.
Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump’s actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.
Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.
His main objection is that the plaintiffs demanded a preliminary injunction with an extremely short deadline upon which they would consider a lack of ruling to be a “constructive denial” which they would appeal, which is highly irregular. He does not meaningfully address the reason for that irregular action, namely the government’s attempts to outrun the judicial process and deport people to El Salvador, from which it claims it cannot return them. Alito claims the courts should rely on the government’s statement that it would not deport the plaintiffs before their hearing.
Under normal circumstances, Alito would be correct. The government normally doesn’t try to do illegal things before the courts can stop them and it would be inappropriate for a plaintiff to apply the extreme time pressure seen here. These are not normal times and the rest of the court appears to recognize that.
Can someone ELI5 ? I thought Trump had the supreme court in his pocket, having appointed a majority of its members?
The supreme court is particularly difficult to actually control. Each has their own beliefs and they’re appointed for life. Thomas for example is fully on board with maga and will take bribes. But kavenaugh is pretty far right but generally seems to believe in the constitution in some form and wants the courts to keep power. Barrett is extremely right wing but is catholic before maga and it seems they’re learning that the hard way recently.
This should have been 9-0. We’re seeing a lot of 7-2 against Trump right now because he’s blatantly violating the constitution. And the court to a certain degree trusts that when they say no, they have enough understanding with the military that when everything is said and done the military will want to have done what the court says as it’s the legitimate governing body acting in accordance with the rules.
Barrett is an interesting one. She was there to provide a woman’s voice against abortion. That job is done now. She was expected to line up with everything else in MAGA, but she’s slowly realizing what a hell hole that is. Like Serena Waterford discovering that this isn’t the world she wanted after all.
I didn’t know they were appointed for life. That’s terrible. Thanks for bringing more nuance to my otherwise basic understanding
The idea is thst they’re supposed to be non partisan voices of the law. And we’re seeing both sides of all of that. For a long time they’ve been partisan, but lifetime appointments mean that they can tell Trump to fuck off in a way congress can’t. It’s significant to note thst the two justices that keep voting with Trump weren’t appointed by him. He appointed kavenaugh, gorsuch, and Barrett. And none of them seem to like him. Meanwhile Thomas has been on the court for decades but his wife is a major figure in maga.
Yeah, thats something that I think needs to change. To many times people sit on that bench until they are almost dead, and I dont like people like that making the laws. Just like I think there should be term limits on Congress
Trump appointed three out of nine justices. Three more were appointed by Republicans (Bush 1 and Bush 2), so a 2/3 majority of justices are considered conservative.
Judicial conservatism, however does not always align with political conservatism. Judicial conservatism tends to mean staying close to the original meaning of the text of the law. Some of Trump’s actions require creative interpretations of the law; in the case at hand, Trump wants to use a law meant to expel citizens of an enemy country during a war to deport immigrants he accuses of being members of gangs without allowing them to challenge that action in court.
Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that a creative interpretation of the law should be allowed here; neither is a Trump appointee.
Oddly, it doesn’t seem to be the Trump appointees who are the biggest problems. Thomas and Alito are completely shameless.
I read Alito’s dissent.
His main objection is that the plaintiffs demanded a preliminary injunction with an extremely short deadline upon which they would consider a lack of ruling to be a “constructive denial” which they would appeal, which is highly irregular. He does not meaningfully address the reason for that irregular action, namely the government’s attempts to outrun the judicial process and deport people to El Salvador, from which it claims it cannot return them. Alito claims the courts should rely on the government’s statement that it would not deport the plaintiffs before their hearing.
Under normal circumstances, Alito would be correct. The government normally doesn’t try to do illegal things before the courts can stop them and it would be inappropriate for a plaintiff to apply the extreme time pressure seen here. These are not normal times and the rest of the court appears to recognize that.
Thanks a lot for all the nuance, that’s great !
Its for the press, they’re trying to show a sense of control but they’ll fold shortly