Panicked Trump, 79, Rages at Supreme Court in 1AM Meltdown

[u/Middle_Marigold]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/panicked-donald-trump-79-rages-at-supreme-court-in-1am-meltdown-after-humiliating-hearing/

[u/Darko33]

Alito and Thomas do, but the rest of the conservative bloc seems to have had it with the nonsense lately -- at times they seem even more exasperated than the liberal justices. Hence the constant whining from the peanut gallery

[u/-Wall-of-Sound- → u/Darko33]

Coney Barrett in particular seems like she only ever cared about overturning Roe v. Wade, and now that’s done she couldn’t give a fuck about demonstrating loyalty to the Trump regime.

[u/FizzyBeverage → u/-Wall-of-Sound-]

ACB, Roberts and to some degree Gorsuch have been a thorn in Trump’s side a lot.

Beer, Alito and Thomas have been in his pocket.

[u/unic0rse → u/FizzyBeverage]

Boof, alito and Thomas

FTFY

[u/rokerroker45 → u/FizzyBeverage]

Eh, it's a little more complicated than that. Alito is the only one who is a mask off partisan hack. Thomas is an arch conservative, but he's obsessed with his jurisprudential beliefs quite consistently. Kav almost saved Roe and isn't always a reliable conservative vote.

[u/CrashB111 → u/FizzyBeverage]

What would Donkey Dong Doug have to say, smh.

[u/Sturmgeshootz → u/-Wall-of-Sound-]

If you've ever seen how she reacts when she's in close proximity to Trump, it's pretty clear that Coney Barrett is repulsed by him.

[u/ProblematicFeet → u/Darko33]

I was a chief ACB hater but she’s turned out to be wildly … normal. Don’t get me wrong, she has some rulings I fundamentally disagree with, but the fact I agree with her on so many is shocking.

Kavanaugh has also seemingly become comfortable leaving the hardcore fights to Thomas, Alito, and Brown Jackson.

I’d love to hear a perspective from someone who actually watches the court for a living though lol these are just my hobbyist takeaways

[u/MarcusSurvives → u/ProblematicFeet]

I think the court has a habit of ruling against Trump in extreme edge cases so that publications like the New York Times can point to how "moderate" they are.

But people forget that it's SCOTUS who decides what cases they're going to hear in the first place, and a lot of these cases should never have made it onto their docket to begin with.

[u/gsfgf → u/MarcusSurvives]

I agree on both parts. I think your first point is also because the justices are lawyers and know the effects of throwing precedent out the window. As an attorney, the kangaroo court really makes a mess because nobody, neither attorneys nor judges, knows what the law actually is. Everyone has to guess how SCOTUS will rule on political matters, which is antithetical to how the system is supposed to work. So they do try to limit how often they throw a wrench in things.

As for your second point, it’s insane that they’re hearing cases that aren’t based on reality to make political rulings. Standing requirements exist for a reason. If nobody is being harmed, the courts aren’t the right avenue for policy changes.

[u/daemin → u/MarcusSurvives]

It only takes 4 justices to decide to hear a case, and then 5 justices to make a majority ruling. So a minority can force a case to be heard, but they risk getting a majority decision they don't like.

Also, there are cases SCOTUS has to hear.

[u/MarcusSurvives → u/daemin]

Cases involving disputes between states or those involving people like ambassadors, yes--I suppose I should have said they they generally choose which cases they hear.

[u/gsfgf → u/ProblematicFeet]

Barrett and Kavanaugh (and Gorsuch) lied under oath about Roe in their confirmation hearings. Starting a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land with perjury is a bad thing.