40 Comments
User's avatar
Angie's avatar

Illegitimate fascist court. I hope to see an America again that will go after these people and their rich backers. There have to be consequences. It may take some time, but I want them destroyed for what they’ve done.

Expand full comment
Michelle Jordan's avatar

It is past time to expand the Supreme Court and impose term limits.

Expand full comment
Hal's avatar

"It is past time to expand the Supreme Court and impose term limits."

Let's place term limits on Congress first.

Expand full comment
David Holzman's avatar

No, let's not. The Supreme Court has far more power than Congress, with the GOP members of SCOTUS driving. It's not adhering to the Constitution, which is more dangerous than most of what Congress is doing--although that BIG UGLY BILL is going to make for big ugly problems.

Expand full comment
Hal's avatar

"The Supreme Court has far more power than Congress..."

Uh, no. Even though we have three branches of government, Congress was intended to have the most power as its members were selected by both the people and state legislatures. They have the power of the purse and write the laws. The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed. And if the President gets to be term-limited, then so should Congress. It's either that or repeal the 22nd Amendment.

"It's not adhering to the Constitution..."

What, exactly, do you think the role of the federal court system is so that it passes whatever standard you deem "constitutional"? Why stop with SCOTUS? Congress has ceded parts of its power to the Executive Branch (tariffs, for example), which should not happen.

"...although that BIG UGLY BILL is going to make for big ugly problems."

It may or may not. What I do know is that all the Dems hate it and most of the Repubs love it. Not unlike when Dems pass one of their mega-bills.

Expand full comment
David Holzman's avatar

If you don't see the damage that it's going to do to the lives of millions of our less fortunate fellow Americans, there's no point in arguing with you.

Expand full comment
Hal's avatar

"If you don't see the damage that it's going to do to the lives of millions of our less fortunate fellow Americans, there's no point in arguing with you."

Well, that's quite a load of non-specific rhetoric there, David. It's probably a good thing you don't try to expand on it.

Expand full comment
Arkansas Blue's avatar

How can that be done when Democratic voters don't vote to give the Democrats the necessary majorities in both houses of congress?

Expand full comment
Gerhard Fischer's avatar

And even then, Dems will not follow through. Too timid, too fragmented, etc.

Expand full comment
Jon's avatar

This has been crazy to watch 15 for 15 I wonder what the next Democratic POTUS's wine percentage will be? And obviously Trump has to win here otherwise why would you let him shut down an agency that you are going to rule should be open? An utter travesty of the law and with zero explanation.

Expand full comment
Pat Jones Garcia's avatar

This is horrible! Why should we keep allowing the president to take powers he does not have and go against our Constitution? Why should he be allowed total destruction of our federal government? Who can stop the Supreme Court Now?!

Expand full comment
Sally Fell's avatar

It's terrifying for me to realize that most citizens have no idea of the ramifications of their ruling. Sometimes, I wonder if the Supreme Court does, or if the majority has given in to intimidation, as well. Who could have imagined that two other branches of government would fold so readily under the maelstrom of Trump?

Expand full comment
Jane in NC's avatar

This court doesn't seem to recognize that we have 3 branches of government, not just one.

Expand full comment
Nick's avatar

GOP Congressional members are breathing a sigh of relief. There is no way GOP Congressional members would have authorized the DOGE cuts, let alone the dismantling of the Dept of Education. Their constituents would be up in arms if there was an actual vote. The six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court don't care about the rule of law, don't care about (these Justices have overruled numerous Congressional directives for no other reason than to make the Felon a king), don't care about precedence (as the women of Strict Scrutiny say: under this Court, precedence is for suckers), don't care about the Constitution (the Court could have demanded the parties submit briefs concerning birth right citizenship; but decided bowing to the Felon was more important).

The six Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court are working diligently in support of the Felon's making the United States an authoritarian theocracy.

Expand full comment
Patrick H's avatar

Just following orders? WTF

Expand full comment
Leslie's avatar

Is there a channel through which the public can communicate with the Supreme Court ? Are there no checks balances on the supreme court? Your analogy of the blender in the fish tank is very helpful and makes me more alarmed even than I was before.

Expand full comment
John Taylor's avatar

In a fascist society one man is above the law. Our Supreme Court has placed Donald Trump above the law. Ergo, we live in a fascist society. It may take decades to return to democracy, if we are ever able to do so, and it is extremely unlikely that the 2026 elections will be free and fair.

Next year's elections will feature purged voter rolls, voter suppression, gerrymandering and an army larger than the Russian Army, without oversight, whose agents wear masks but not badges, directed by Donald Trump, under the guise of "election integrity", to keep liberal voters from the polls.

As JD Vance said, "Trump is America's Hitler."

Expand full comment
Oldandintheway's avatar

It seems as if when Trump decides he will run again for president in 2028, the court will let him run until they actually hear the case, and they won't hear the case until the end of 2029.

Expand full comment
Marj Lacey's avatar

In my young and foolish days, I believed the Supreme Court would save us from the lunacy that occasionally erupted in the executive and legislative branches. Obviously, I was wrong; I failed to realize we would elect the most unqualified president in history (not once, but twice) and that the Supreme Court would bow down before him. ... And Congress...Congress seems barely engaged in the process of legislating. ... I often think back to the Republican primary in 2016. Even at the time, I wondered why that party allowed Trump to participate in their debates and (if I recall correctly) placed him center stage. He obviously didn't belong there. He is greedy, grasping, self-absorbed, and totally unsuited for the job. I fear for our future. I no longer have faith in the Supreme Court's ability to protect our democracy.

Expand full comment
Rick Lempert's avatar

Kim is right, but the situation is even worse than she describes. In addition to staying injunctions if the party seeking to stay the injunction is likely to win, the decision on whether to stay an order also turns on (or should turn on) whether one party is likely to be irrevocably harmed by the stay. To continue Kim’s metaphor, are the fish going to be able to avoid the grinder before the full case is heard or will they be ground up and killed before then. Although it is clear that it would be hugely difficult to rebuild the Ed. Dept. if it turns out that the trial judge was correct, it is not completely clear that in a technical, as opposed to realistic, sense that the harm is irreparable. This is because the Dept could be reconstituted and those fired could be given back pay for the time they are off the job. Had Congress been suing, the situation with respect to irreparable harm might be different, given the special interest Congress has in seeing its laws upheld.

This is, however, not the situation with respect to all of the injunctions that the Court has stayed. Some of them involved rulings to protect people from deportation. These people could be literally killed and even if they are not, they and their families, some of whom may be American citizens, will suffer harms that cannot, even in legal theory, be reversed.

What is perhaps most discouraging about this series of decisions is that months ago it was not unreasonable to think that even if Thomas. Alito and Gorsuch were hopelessly bad and beyond the influence of law, the Constitution or precedent, Roberts, Barrett and maybe Kavenaugh would, when push came to shove, want to preserve the Court’s power vis-a-vis the President and would honor bedrock decisions and legal principles that preserve the separation of powers. These stay decisions have disabused judicial observers of their optimism.

Expand full comment
David Moscatello's avatar

Thomas and Alito are of course unimaginably corrupt, but I hold John Roberts responsible for the degradation of the court into a fascist puppet show.

Expand full comment
Ginny's avatar

SCOTUS minus 3 women justices (S, K, J) is betraying the people and the Constitution. They must be held accountable. How that is possible is well beyond me but there must be some way to slap their hands and put them in time out, or better yet, get rid of them.

Expand full comment
Oldandintheway's avatar

The Dems have to take control of the House in 2024. Then they can impeach at least two of the justices for bribery and conflicts of interests. They won't be convicted but they will be humiliated and at least the country will wake up to who they are. The trouble is, if they resign, Trump will get to appoint people to replace them and we will get Jean Pirro and Aileen Cannon -- so we have to wait until we have a Democratic president and control of the Senate.

Expand full comment
John Taylor's avatar

The MAGA Supreme Court justices cannot be humiliated because they have no shame. One of the features of the MAGA movement is its utter lack of shame. You cannot humiliate a Supreme Court justice who does not have any sense of shame.

Expand full comment
Hal's avatar

"In a one-paragraph order that gave no reasons at all, the court stayed the injunction – meaning that the plan to dissolve the agency can move forward even before the question of the lawfulness of that plan has been decided."

Did the SCOTUS order state that Trump could actually abolish the Department of Education, or did it simply allow for the firing of personnel while the department is being reduced and reorganized while litigation is ongoing?

Expand full comment
Gerhard Fischer's avatar

Well, the question may well be if death by starvation leaves a carcass that can be revived.

Expand full comment
Hal's avatar

The republic will not fail if the Department of Education ceases to exist.

Expand full comment
Sam Faeth's avatar

Fish soup…a disgustingly apt image. Thanks.

Expand full comment