Amy Coney Barrett will piss off Trump
Justice Barrett will continue to annoy MAGA world and Donald Trump. Oh, she'll piss us off on occasion, also.
You see, they rushed Barrett onto the court out of necessity after the death of Justice Ginsburg. I believe she's not as loyal to Trump, personally, as he would like. She was well known to be a religious zealot and anti-choice. But when it comes to bending over backwards to protect Trump or destroy our Constitution, she is proving less than an automatic MAGA vote, like Alito or Thomas. She seems to be siding more and more with Roberts, and they are forming some sort of right of center 2 person swing block.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an old fashioned Democratic Liberal, cut from the old Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, RBG school of Judicial review.
And, although I would prefer another strong Liberal Justice, Barrett may prove just a bit more of a pain in the ass for Trump than I originally anticipated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
This is not getting a lot of play on DU, but the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that people that laws say cannot be fired by Trump without cause must, in today's authoritarian country, stay fired until courts issue definitive judgements.
In a decision that alarmed legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the reinstatement of two labor regulators fired by President Donald Trump in apparent violation of federal law intended to prevent such ousters for political reasons.
The Trump administration asked the high court—which has a right-wing supermajority—to block orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia against the president's removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox.
An unsigned two-page opinion—from which the three liberals dissented—provides the Trump administration that relief, but the majority declined to take up the cases more fully, meaning they will play out U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Hill noted that the move "leaves both agencies without a quorum required to conduct certain business in the meantime."
In her fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "for 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States... has stood as a precedent of this court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey's undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/humphrey-s-executor
BTW the historical basis for the "unitary executive theory" that the Supreme Court embraced today is total bunk, just an egregious, bad-faith misreading of history. It's pure bullshit. A court with integrity would acknowledge its mistake instead of doubling down. ndlawreview.org/interring-th...
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2025-05-22T21:25:43.629Z
Mark Joseph Stern on BlueSky:
The Supreme Court goes out of its way to say that its order today does NOT allow Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve because it is "uniquely structured" and has a "distinct history tradition." (I do not think those distinctions hold water.)
Kagan's dissent is scorching and worth reading in full. She calls out the majority for effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor on the shadow docket and allowing Trump to break the law without even awaiting the Supreme Court's permission. She is alarmed.
BTW the historical basis for the "unitary executive theory" that the Supreme Court embraced today is total bunk, just an egregious, bad-faith misreading of history. It's pure bullshit. A court with integrity would acknowledge its mistake instead of doubling down.
Lawyers, Guns & Money blog:
) in an unreasoned four-paragraph opinion for Daddy Trump
To elaborate on Paul’s post below, the Court today overruled the Court’s unanimous 1935 opinion holding that Congress can require that members of executive agencies it creates to be fired only for cause sub silentio. (Literally — as Kagan observes the Court’s opinion does not even cite the controlling precedent.) The Court’s apparent new rule is indeed just royalism, essentially proceeding as if Congress has no interests worth even being considered:
...
As Kagan says, a major tell in the opinion is that it sees the only competing interest belonging to the officers themselves, ignoring the strong interest the people and their representatives have in having their statutorily expressed will honored
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/05/overruling-90-years-of-precedent-except-for-the-fed-in-an-unreasoned-four-paragraph-opinion-for-daddy-trump
Today on the shadow docket: overruling Humphrey’s Executor sub silentio (except for the federal reserve under the well-known “but muh portfolio†rule)
— Scott Lemieux (@lemieuxlgm.bsky.social) 2025-05-22T21:21:51.442Z
This is an attack on the Constitution (it's about whether the Presidency can ignore laws passed by Congress), and Coney Barrett, and Roberts, are supporting Trump in the attack.
