89 Comments
User's avatar
Laura Belin's avatar

I keep coming back to this: the conservative justices ruled that Biden exceeded his authority by forgiving student loan debt. But they are fine with Trump axing spending and programs already approved by Congress, and in this case with dismantling an agency authorized by Congress.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

What was that comment by Justice Amy Coney Barrett?..."My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks, ...".

I believe that Steve Vladeck elegantly proved the contrary, with receipts.

Expand full comment
Dan Bielaski's avatar

Justice Barrett also urged "all engaged and interested Americans to read the opinions", in her appearance at the Reagan Library in 2022. Of course, this is increasingly difficult to do when so many consequential decisions are being made on the emergency (shadow) docket, usually unsigned and unexplained, or with the barest of reasoning offered.

The Court is obligated to explain itself in each and every decision, so the American public can decide whether or not to be persuaded by its ruling, but especially (as Professor Vladeck stated) when there appear to be "alarming inconsistencies in the Court’s behavior that seem best-explained not by a legal principle, but by which party controlled the White House".

As a citizen who does follow the Court and reads many of its decisions (when available), this current Court has lost all legitimacy with me and has much to do before I start placing any kind of trust in it again.

Expand full comment
Rich McLeod's avatar

I’m not weighing in on the merits of today’s SCOTUS decision—maybe the Executive and Judicial branches truly see eye to eye. But what breaks my heart is this: Congress wasn’t just ignored, it was steamrolled. Our Constitution was built on checks and balances, not backroom handshakes between two branches. When one branch is silenced and the other two cheer, that’s not government—it’s a warning flare.

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

But wasn't Congress willingly steamrolled ? At least the Republicans?

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

Indeed - Republicans, who hold control of Congress are complicit. This is a three ring circus of Sedition against the last 160 years of progress.

Expand full comment
Rich McLeod's avatar

Probably, but 2 things - had the statutory RIF framework been invoked, it would have at least delayed the immediate harm. And the speech and debate would be another [possibly futile] opportunity to alert the public

Expand full comment
Richard's avatar

>To avoid the appearance that the justices are just voting their partisan policy preferences

There's an implicit assumption that they care about appearances. At this point I find that hard to believe. It's just Calvinball.

Following precedent, ensuring laws be faithfully executed, basic statutory and Constitutional interpretation, etc., etc. are becoming distant memories.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

Alito gets to decide whether his own appearance of impropriety is even an appearance or not. He's nothing but theatre now. Oh, and quoting 17th century witch-burners because that's how we establish sensible abortion law now. Wait, I already said theatre didn't I...

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

NO WONDER they don't even bother explaining themselves ...

Expand full comment
Unemployed Northeastern's avatar

SCOTUS: Biden cannot use an explicit Congressionally mandated authority to waive or modify student loans.

SCOTUS: Trump can unilaterally destroy a Congressionally mandated department.

Expand full comment
cruxdaemon's avatar

SCOTUS then: Biden cannot do what the law explicitly says during a Trump-declared national emergency because student loan relief is so much money it's a "major question."

SCOTUS soon: Trump can absolutely unilaterally declare current trade policy is an emergency and increase tariffs to levels not seen in almost 100 years. I didn't see it being argued about on Fox, so although the economic impact is way more, this is minor.

Expand full comment
Jeff Lazar's avatar

I think it is the fully predictable and wholly inconsistent response from the fascists who wear black robes.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

As I wrote elsewhere, The Extreme Court (kudos to Jon Margolis (https://jonmargolis.substack.com) for the clever but simple name) is following the Project 2025 script to the letter. From p. 285:

"[T]he Department of Education (the depart-ment, or ED), discussed by Lindsey Burke in Chapter 11, is a creation of the JimmyCarter Administration. The department is a convenient one-stop shop for the woke education cartel, which—as the COVID era showed—is not particularly concerned with children’s education. Schools should be responsive to parents, rather than to leftist advocates intent on indoctrination—and the more the federal government is involved in education, the less responsive to parents the public schools will be.This department is an example of federal intrusion into a traditionally state andl ocal realm. For the sake of American children, Congress should shutter it and return control of education to the states."

Keep in mind the ultimate goal of Project 2025 and the Extreme Court: Turn the USA into a Christian-based autocratic democracy.

Expand full comment
tempprofile's avatar

"Turn the USA into a Christian-based autocratic democracy."

Feudalistic White Christian Theocracy , There is no democracy involved. The ultra wealthy make the rules, the priests keep the serfs ignorant and docile, and the thugs break heads when the "lower classes" get out of line.

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

You are right . . . the term "autocratic democracy" is an intended oxymoron. The actual term is electoral authoritarianism where there is a facade of representative democracy when, in fact, the outcome is predetermined. This is precisely what is happening as the Court allows Trump to dismantle government while supporting monied interests and voter suppression.

Expand full comment
Robert Israel's avatar

One doesn’t need a law degree or have to understand all this legal stuff to predict almost 100% of the time how this fascist court will rule on any case involving trump and the republican agenda

They are his personal law firm -it’s that simple

What an embarrassment they are to the legal profession-

Expand full comment
Glen Anderson's avatar

Sadly, I'm witnessing very little embarrassment.

Expand full comment
Jason Marks's avatar

SV, I think it's time to stop with "the majority needs to explain itself to dispel the appearance that its rulings are purely partisan." I believe I've read that one of the characteristics of fascism is dispensing with fig leafs, and making clear that naked power will be exercised against domestic opponents.

Expand full comment
Dismantling Our Greed Economy's avatar

Justice Sotomayor detailed the ways in which the ongoing dismantling of the Education Department violates the plain language of the Constitution and multiple federal laws. The majority on the current Supreme Court have once again proven that they are fair weather originalists.

Expand full comment
Allan Leedy's avatar

They're just a gaggle of two-bit hacks who don't deserve the intellectual horsepower you are giving their pitiful mewlings. But thanks for drawing back the curtain for us.

Expand full comment
Penny H. Thomas's avatar

Question in reference to the Supreme Court and its decisions: If a core concept of democracy is the principle of government of the people, by the people, for the people. How does the concept of the unitary president enhance popular sovereignty?

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

Sorry, I shouldn't *just* be snarky about it...

All of it (p2025) is reactionary. Reconstruction and every other progressive gain since, all under attack. Lincoln, Teddy, they'll even pretend Ike was held hostage to enforce the law at Ole Miss.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

Wait, you thought they were Lincoln fans?

Expand full comment
Michele K Danzis's avatar

Been thinking about the “Supreme” Court most of the morning. First let’s establish the fact that I have no faith whatsoever in 6 of the members to stand up and protect our Constitution. That being said I have a prediction.

Roberts is 70, Thomas is 77, Alito is 74, Sotomayor is 71, Kagan is 65, Gorsuch is 58, Kavanaugh is 60, Barret is 53 and Ketanji Brown Jackson is 55.

At the end of what we would traditionally call the executive term they will all be 3 years older. To preserve their ability to destroy this country as we know it, at the end of 2028 Thomas and Alito will retire so president Felon can appoint like minds to take their place. Maybe even Roberts.

Sotomayor will stay as long as she can even though she will be 74, but she will use Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a roll model. Kagan and Jackson will be secure as, unfortunately, will be Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret but president Felon and his acolytes will do exactly what they did with Kavanaugh and Barret.

Therefore our only hope for the future of the Court is a Democratic and Independent takeover of the House and Senate if possible.

As of this morning the polls show an average 51.9% disapproval rate nationally. Keep in mind that is only 5+ months in office and we still have roughly 16 months for it to crash and burn, so it is extremely reasonable to have hope.

I am in Delaware (as you all already know) so I have little concern that either Senator Coons or Representative McBride will not be re-elected but Delaware had always been seen as inconsequential because of our population size. Therefore, it goes without saying the work has got to be done in those “swing” states.

I read that 2 of our neighbors will be targeted, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and probably Maryland as well. I think Pennsylvania has already felt MAGA damage particularly in the western region where MAGA has had its greatest support. Being a former New Jerseyite I am confident that the majority, particularly the north and northeast will not tolerate any continued efforts to destroy their lives and the prospects for their children.

Expand full comment
Wendy Leigh's avatar

We should call it the Federalist Knights of Malta Kourt at this point.

Expand full comment
Marc Robbins's avatar

I don't really care if the majority issued a written opinion justifying their decision. They're smart people and they have smart clerks so they would come up with some document that sounds plausible to people who want to think they're dispassionate and meanwhile smart people like you will pick the decision apart and that will be satisfying to people like me who think they're partisan and biased.

I judge them by the outcome and not by their reasoning. And that outcome is total crap.

Expand full comment
Jon Saxton's avatar

Just need to point out that there’s an error in the title to this post. “Inconsistent’ is spelled wrong. It should read:

The TrumpRoyalFlush Court Strikes Again.

Expand full comment
Aamil Rick Targow's avatar

I think Steve's wanting an explanation assumes that there are defensible reasons. There are not. As another commentator said recently, this is simply gerrymandering the law in favor of the Republicans.

Expand full comment
babaganusz's avatar

I do wonder just how far we are past the point of this display of "reasonableness on the record, no one can pretend their judgement wasn't being validly questioned" yada yada ... as if it's going to move the needle for a few FedSoc kids before they become part of the happy Family machine

Expand full comment