2025 SCOTUS

[Winehole23]

the unsigned order in Orr waves its hands at irreparable harm—asserting, with precisely zero support, that the district court’s injunction irreparably harms the government because it “enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government do ent.” As you might have noticed, there’s no discussion of how sex markers on a passport have any “foreign affairs implications,” let alone how those implications, whatever they may be, are somehow “irreparable.” In other words, the order does nothing (and, frankly, the Trump administration’s briefs don’t do much more) to explain how the district court’s injunction harms the “government’ at all—let alone in a way that can’t be fixed through an ordinary appeal.


This last point is especially telling, since the district court’s injunction simply returned the status quo to the very policy that the U.S. government had followed for the preceding 33 years. And lest this seem like a technical point, it’s absolutely essential to the majority’s analysis; without “irreparable harm,” the Trump administration would not be en led to relief no matter what else is true about this case.

[Winehole23]

placing the burden on the respondents (the plaintiffs) to show that the new passport policy is motivated by animus against transgender or nonbinary individuals, and that it violates the APA. It’s the Trump administration that’s seeking emergency relief; the burden is, or at least should be, on it to explain why the lower courts were wrong on these fronts—including by explaining what possible reason it could have for the policy other than the transparent animus reflected in President Trump’s executive order.


Again, as with the underlying irreparable harm finding, these moves were also critical to the case—because one could believe that the government is harmed and still think that the harms in the other direction are sufficiently serious to justify leaving the district court’s injunction in place. But for the Supreme Court and emergency applications from the Trump administration, the rules are just … different.

[Winehole23]

From the Justice Jackson dissent

This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5a319_i4dj.pdf

[Winehole23]

Trump very worried SCOTUS will rule against him

btw, Trump can get all the tariffs he wants through Republicans in Congress

is governing the regular way no longer an option?

[BadMotorscooter]

Trump slaps snow flake democrats again with government shutdown....lmao

[Winehole23]

Gay marriage safe, for the time being

[Winehole23]

Kim Davis may finally have to pay the people whose rights she violated

[Winehole23]

could be a big one

phantom originalism, tbh

elections have never been over on election day

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/24-1260.html

[Winehole23]

could be a big one

phantom originalism, tbh

elections have never been over on election day

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/24-1260.html

but that seems to be the MAGA aspiration

breathtaking and arbitrary abrogation of voting

[Winehole23]

my PFA take is it won't work

50 states run elections

the anti-MAGA wave can't be cheated, even by the cheaters

[Winehole23]

Trump slaps snow flake democrats again with government shutdown....lmao

Trump didn't do squat

[Winehole23]

The House of Representatives has been sitting on its hands doing nothing since a few days in September

The Epstein shutdown started in August for the House of Representatives

Couldn't get to 60 in the Senate until a few minutes ago, because the pain Republicans are inflicting on the body politic is quite real, and the US Senate moves slow

[Winehole23]

everything now depends on House Republicans to reconcile with the Senate version and reopen the government

[SnakeBoy]

Trump didn't do squat

He made you fold

[BadMotorscooter]

He made you fold

Absolutely right, Snake....he made democrats take a knee.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Kim Davis may finally have to pay the people whose rights she violated

My theory on why SCOTUS isn't keen on overturning Obergefell (even though it should absolutely be, fundamentally, cons utionally, a states' rights issue) is simply because the conservative majority learned their lesson from the 2022 midterms that you don't awaken the left wing hornet's nest too close to the 2026 midterm elections.

If anything, they may take another look at it in 2027. The priority right now for SCOTUS should be overturning tariffs and overturning VRA Section II so the south can redraw the maps because California is sure going HAM!.

[Winehole23]

He made you fold

lol no

[Winehole23]

Trump, afraid of having to disgorge his illegal tariffs, wants to blame the result on SCOTUS rather than his own lawlessness and grasping for power

[Winehole23]

(I wonder if Trump has been spending the money, and can't repay it for that reason)

[Winehole23]

as usual, Trump has a very weak grasp on actual figures

The actual amount of #IEEFA tariffs likely to be refunded, in the event of a full reversal: $115b to $145b, says a Goldman estimate.

[Winehole23]

SCOTUS fighting hard to help Trump starve Americans

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5a319_i4dj.pdf

[Winehole23]

helping Trump break the law too, this shouldn't go unnoticed

[Winehole23]

what good is SCOTUS as an ins ution of democracy and justice, if it allows the executive to trample the cons ution and the people?

[BadMotorscooter]

what good is SCOTUS as an ins ution of democracy and justice, if it allows the executive to trample the cons ution and the people?

Show me, Whine Ho....show me where SCOTUS is running rampant all over the cons ution and the people....especially since the will of the people was delivered in November with Trump winning all swing states and the popular vote......and dont post some far left article about it....lets hear it from you how they doing this.

[BadMotorscooter]

Heres whats funny....democrats have tried to run on the premise that Americans have the right to healthcare insurance.....but nope, they dont. Nowhere in the cons ution does it say you get healthcare insurance. You get freedom of speech....the right to bear arms....but nowhere does it say you have the right to healthcare insurance.....but when republicans and the SCOTUS smash Obamacare and the subsidies....democrats cry foul and say its a right......lmao.