Amy Coney Barrett will piss off Trump

[Pototan]

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.

[elleng]

1. Yes, probably more than once!!!!

[Pototan]

2. Her politics resemble

Mike Pence's more than Donald Trump. Pence may not be my cup of tea and I may disagree with him on 90% of the issues, but I'll take his ethics over Trump's any day.

[elleng]

5. No way to know her 'politics.' She seems to be too smart to enable politics to enter her Court votes.

[Pototan]

8. Maybe not politics, but "opinions"

Anti Choice, strong religious tendencies. Her recent recusal on an issue that she supports, causing its defeat does say something about her ethics. I could see Pence do something like that. Her Constitutional ethics resemble Pence's.

[MadameButterfly]

11. Why do i not find that ressuring

Or worse, why do we find that reassuring?

[Pototan]

19. Look. What do you think

you're going to get from a Trump appointment and a Republican Senate?

Our Democracy is hanging by a thread. Barrett and Roberts may be the only thing keeping us from Descending into a full-scale dictatorship.

We can only play the cards that are dealt us. A Republican House and Senate (Article 1), a Republican Presidency (Article 2), a super majority (6-3) Republican appointed Supreme Court (Article 3). The American voters, in all their wisdom, have dealt us a pair of deuces. All we can hope is that hand holds up.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Perhaps Barrett is tRump's Justice Souter (who passed away recently). . . . nt

[elleng]

6. Seems about correct.

[Volaris]

7. We should be that lucky.. seems to me, at least, shes not inclined to let

a bunch of Maga-misogynist asshole lawyers disrespect the other women on her bench, or the Bench itself. If THATS all we get out of her on a consistent basis, I'll take that, keep my mouth shut about a lot of the rest of it, and just say 'thank you'.

[MadameButterfly]

12. Maybe she signed up to be a right wing judge in a democracy

but she didn't signe up to overthrow democracy.

She and Roberts have to know Trump is all grift, not RW policy. Will they ruin their reputations and give away the power of the courts for grift?
Their past deisions don't inspire confidence, but perhaps hope?

[Pototan]

24. That's the point of the OP

Thank you

[hatrack]

22. Best-case scenario . . . .

.

[live love laugh]

4. I doubt that one recusal will translate into more of the same.

[yliza]

9. She's no Aileen Cannon

Thank goodness!

[MadameButterfly]

13. Let's just lpray that Thomas won't want to retire and bask in the luxury

his owners will offer him to give his seat to a younger version of himself. Because we could indeed have Aileen Cannon on SCOTUS if this comes to pass.

[Kaleva]

10. Freepers have hated her for awhile now

Along with Kavanaugh.

[MadameButterfly]

15. Kavanaugh? What did Kavanaugh do?

[Kaleva]

20. He occasionally votes with the liberals on the Court

[Hekate]

14. My husband keeps saying the same thing. Anti-abortion she may be, but she is proving to be ...

…a more independent thinker than anyone expected — least of all trump.

[MadameButterfly]

16. This is the pernicious nature of a lifetime appointment

One has a tendency to speak onse own mind. Assuming the threats don't get out of hand.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. She's pissed off all democrats on Thursday, with a decision to allow Trump to fire agency heads at will

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.

'Legislating From the Bench,' Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Firing of Labor Regulators

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:

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just effectively overruled 90 years of precedent on the shadow docket, greenlighting Trump's firing of multi-member agency leaders while their cases are pending—despite Congress' effort to protect them against removal. A huge decision.

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:

Overruling 90 years of precedent (except for the Fed ) 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.

[Emile]

18. A provision in the proposed budget that passed in the house, limits the ability

of the courts to enforce their rulings against the government.

[Kaleva]

21. Courts may not find that provision Constitutional

[Patton French]

23. Good

NT

[Jose Garcia]

25. It appears that the only SC Justices who consistently back Trump are two whom he did not appoint

Alito and Thomas

[Mz Pip]

26. The side eye she gave Trump

at the SOTU was priceless. It was so full of contempt.
I don’t expect her to rubber stamp Trump’s agenda at all.

[appmanga]

27. I wouldn't rush to judgment (no pun intended)...

...but she did look physically repulsed at Trump's approaching Robert's at the SOTU. She's also indicated unhappiness in her writings at the overreach of the other so-called Conservative Justices in the Colorado and Immunity cases, overreach that will inevitably lead to more cases, as if that's needed.

I wouldn't hold my breath thinking she's going to become something like Harry Blackmun or David Souter, but being on the Court has changed people before, so it's possible.

[Basso8vb]

28. She will be summarily removed from the bench along with all of the traitor MAGA scum on the court

when we finally wrest back control.