All of them are the reason we have Trump and the SOCTUS we have.
September 29, 2026 at 11:42 AM
All of them are the reason we have Trump and the SOCTUS we have.
"Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision eliminates the basis for this Court's order to show cause, which should therefore be dissolved as well."
This, filed with Boasberg along with the SOCTUS order, is a ridiculous suggestion.
This, filed with Boasberg along with the SOCTUS order, is a ridiculous suggestion.
Um, No, Bondi, that's not how it works. And that explains why you only have political appointees on this absurd notice. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
April 8, 2025 at 3:29 AM
"Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision eliminates the basis for this Court's order to show cause, which should therefore be dissolved as well."
This, filed with Boasberg along with the SOCTUS order, is a ridiculous suggestion.
This, filed with Boasberg along with the SOCTUS order, is a ridiculous suggestion.
It's not on Biden for not expanding SOCTUS, it's on voters for not weighing SCOTUS in their decisions
June 27, 2025 at 2:47 PM
It's not on Biden for not expanding SOCTUS, it's on voters for not weighing SCOTUS in their decisions
More stalling and defiance of the SOCTUS order.
This shit will continue until Xinis starts locking up DOJ ambulance chasers.
This shit will continue until Xinis starts locking up DOJ ambulance chasers.
May 14, 2025 at 6:34 AM
More stalling and defiance of the SOCTUS order.
This shit will continue until Xinis starts locking up DOJ ambulance chasers.
This shit will continue until Xinis starts locking up DOJ ambulance chasers.
BTW I don't want to sound glib here. My harebrained take, for liberals who want to weaken SOCTUS, is that they could do some jurisdiction-stripping under Article III, Section 2.
Biden filled every vacancy he could with liberals, and gets little credit for it because people are fixated on the "simply pack the court" pipe dream.
April 30, 2026 at 12:42 PM
BTW I don't want to sound glib here. My harebrained take, for liberals who want to weaken SOCTUS, is that they could do some jurisdiction-stripping under Article III, Section 2.
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." The line from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar sums up Lindsey Graham so well. We will not sanitize Graham's horrible actions from helping pack SOCTUS to protecting Trump after Jan 6 to cheerleading the genocide in Gaza
July 12, 2026 at 5:17 PM
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." The line from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar sums up Lindsey Graham so well. We will not sanitize Graham's horrible actions from helping pack SOCTUS to protecting Trump after Jan 6 to cheerleading the genocide in Gaza
Would love a SOCTUS oral arguer to tell CT if he actually believes that he should resign and go to work picking cotton
July 10, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Would love a SOCTUS oral arguer to tell CT if he actually believes that he should resign and go to work picking cotton
One of the worst features of the modern SOCTUS system---not just the Court but the entire network of feeder schools and clerkships and professional associations, the whole constitutional law industrial complex---is that it results in justices who exist in a pure bubble of sycophancy.
May 5, 2026 at 2:13 AM
One of the worst features of the modern SOCTUS system---not just the Court but the entire network of feeder schools and clerkships and professional associations, the whole constitutional law industrial complex---is that it results in justices who exist in a pure bubble of sycophancy.
It is sort of weird that the only place where Trump-era SOCTUS has defended the administrative state is the Fed, and the only place they have defended Congressional powers are tariffs. Is it possible to have a jurisprudence that is not directly connected to taxes and investments?
November 5, 2025 at 4:57 PM
It is sort of weird that the only place where Trump-era SOCTUS has defended the administrative state is the Fed, and the only place they have defended Congressional powers are tariffs. Is it possible to have a jurisprudence that is not directly connected to taxes and investments?
Trump SOCTUS
www.documentcloud.org
January 8, 2025 at 2:08 PM
soctus rules 6-3 that the first amendment is first because it's the least important
The government acknowledges that it ripped our client Mahmoud Khalil from his home and his family solely because of his political beliefs and expression.
Ideas aren’t illegal. Mahmoud must be released.
Ideas aren’t illegal. Mahmoud must be released.
Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government cites its power to deport people for beliefs
The U.S. government has submitted a two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio as its main evidence in its deportation case against Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil.
apnews.com
April 13, 2025 at 4:07 AM
soctus rules 6-3 that the first amendment is first because it's the least important
Nothing Merrick Garland could’ve done would’ve stopped the Supreme Court majority from putting Trump above the law.
Doesn’t mean Garland is above criticism. Hardly.
But it does mean there was no move—no matter how fast—no strategy, no One Weird Trick. SOCTUS would’ve done whatever they needed to.
Doesn’t mean Garland is above criticism. Hardly.
But it does mean there was no move—no matter how fast—no strategy, no One Weird Trick. SOCTUS would’ve done whatever they needed to.
December 18, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Nothing Merrick Garland could’ve done would’ve stopped the Supreme Court majority from putting Trump above the law.
Doesn’t mean Garland is above criticism. Hardly.
But it does mean there was no move—no matter how fast—no strategy, no One Weird Trick. SOCTUS would’ve done whatever they needed to.
Doesn’t mean Garland is above criticism. Hardly.
But it does mean there was no move—no matter how fast—no strategy, no One Weird Trick. SOCTUS would’ve done whatever they needed to.
I get that there are legitimate criticisms of Roberts but we want SOCTUS to be independent and jealous. We would be much better off if the Senate also felt this way.
I don't have a copy of this yet but 👀
*CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS OF SUPREME COURT ISSUES STATEMENT
*US CHIEF JUSTICE CALLS IMPEACHING JUDGES FOR RULINGS IMPROPER
*CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS OF SUPREME COURT ISSUES STATEMENT
*US CHIEF JUSTICE CALLS IMPEACHING JUDGES FOR RULINGS IMPROPER
March 18, 2025 at 4:02 PM
I get that there are legitimate criticisms of Roberts but we want SOCTUS to be independent and jealous. We would be much better off if the Senate also felt this way.
Or they're a conservative SOCTUS nominee lying under oath during confirmation hearings.
August 24, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Or they're a conservative SOCTUS nominee lying under oath during confirmation hearings.
This is her response to DoJs reply to her original appeal. DoJ last week called her SOCTUS appea argument incorrect, misplaced, self defeating, and said it lacked merit.
July 29, 2025 at 3:24 AM
This is her response to DoJs reply to her original appeal. DoJ last week called her SOCTUS appea argument incorrect, misplaced, self defeating, and said it lacked merit.
.
HAHAha!
I guess the judge does not know that
REPUBLICANS and SOCTUS installed DICTATOR Trump.
There isn't a constitution anymore.
Trump has been disobeying the constitution every single day!!!!
Wake up, judgy.
HAHAha!
I guess the judge does not know that
REPUBLICANS and SOCTUS installed DICTATOR Trump.
There isn't a constitution anymore.
Trump has been disobeying the constitution every single day!!!!
Wake up, judgy.
February 4, 2026 at 8:08 PM
.
HAHAha!
I guess the judge does not know that
REPUBLICANS and SOCTUS installed DICTATOR Trump.
There isn't a constitution anymore.
Trump has been disobeying the constitution every single day!!!!
Wake up, judgy.
HAHAha!
I guess the judge does not know that
REPUBLICANS and SOCTUS installed DICTATOR Trump.
There isn't a constitution anymore.
Trump has been disobeying the constitution every single day!!!!
Wake up, judgy.
Soctus justices hanging US sedition flags upside down is mind-blowing even 20 years ago. Forget 40.
May 21, 2024 at 7:08 AM
Soctus justices hanging US sedition flags upside down is mind-blowing even 20 years ago. Forget 40.
Tear down SOCTUS. Packing and disempowering is the only way.
* U.S. SUPREME COURT CLEARS WAY FOR DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST TRUMP ALLY STEVE BANNON FOR DEFYING CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA
@reuters.com
@reuters.com
April 6, 2026 at 1:37 PM
Tear down SOCTUS. Packing and disempowering is the only way.
like one SOCTUS justice aptly noted, it is Calvinball, but with one fixed rule: the administration always wins.
September 9, 2025 at 8:38 PM
like one SOCTUS justice aptly noted, it is Calvinball, but with one fixed rule: the administration always wins.
Make sure we keep up the heat on SOCTUS!
DO NOT PASS THE SAVE ACT!!!
Call your Senators TODAY before it’s too late: 202-224-3121. #SaveActIsPayToVote
DO NOT PASS THE SAVE ACT!!!
Call your Senators TODAY before it’s too late: 202-224-3121. #SaveActIsPayToVote
Status of the SAVE Act
YouTube video by Amanda's Mild Takes
www.youtube.com
March 16, 2026 at 7:01 PM
Make sure we keep up the heat on SOCTUS!
DO NOT PASS THE SAVE ACT!!!
Call your Senators TODAY before it’s too late: 202-224-3121. #SaveActIsPayToVote
DO NOT PASS THE SAVE ACT!!!
Call your Senators TODAY before it’s too late: 202-224-3121. #SaveActIsPayToVote
The story of today’s SCOTUS decision is the story of SOCTUS 2025–26: pretending Trump isn‘t Trump
Under a replacement Normal President, SCOTUS’ order today would be tendentious but within a realm of defensible
Under Trump, it‘s not even close
Under a replacement Normal President, SCOTUS’ order today would be tendentious but within a realm of defensible
Under Trump, it‘s not even close
KBJ then attacks the whole premise that the district court and DC Circuit had engaged in improper hypothetical speculation, when the Exec. Order expressly directs unlawful actions and these actions were then taken
"The majority’s analysis thus fails to draw obvious inferences"
"The majority’s analysis thus fails to draw obvious inferences"
![Court “first had to speculate about whether the Postal Ser
vice would propose a rule,” ibid. Quite to the contrary, the
record reveals that the District Court just looked at the
facts. No speculation about whether USPS would “propose
a rule” was needed because the Executive Order explicitly
directs the Postmaster General “to initiate a proposed rule
making . . . within 60 days.” 91 Fed. Reg. 17126 (emphasis
added). The Order further details the content of that rule,
stating that the proposed rule “shall include, at minimum,”
“[p]roposed provisions specifying that all outbound ballot
mail must be mailed in an envelope that . . . bears a unique
Intelligent Mail barcode.” Ibid. The Order also demands
that the proposed rule expressly provide “that the USPS
shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any in
dividual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a
State-specific list.” Ibid. So, the Court’s conclusion that the
District Court engaged in sheer speculation about whether
a proposed rule would issue and what it might say, ante, at
7, is a stunning misinterpretation of the factual record.
That USPS actually proposed a rule in response to the
Order further demonstrates that the District Court did not,
in fact, speculate about the Order’s effects. On these facts,
the Order’s impact was not even remotely hypothetical.
The proposed rule, which USPS promulgated on June 2,
2026, lays out new standards for ballot envelope design—
exactly as the Order directs—and incorporates the Order’s](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:eoss3vmzem55cm5kuddhdmwn/bafkreibf44emybu6lbc4caa5tnx7hg7rmqhs7oa22nq3a6v7mjt3nv5noq)
![the Order; nothing in this record portrays any hesitation.12
This very stay application is a testament to imminent action: The Government asked us to lift the District Court’s injunction precisely because it insisted that it must be permitted to implement the Order by promulgating a final rule
ahead of the November election. See Application for Stay
2. There is simply no factual basis for the Court’s conten
tion that the lower courts were engaged in speculation or its suggestion that the Government might yet abandon the
full court press the President’s Order has prompted.
The majority’s analysis thus fails to draw obvious infer
ences about the Order’s downstream effects from the undis
puted facts in this record. It also sidesteps a key factual
finding: that the Plaintiff States are imminently injured by
an Order directing any changes to their balloting materials
or systems before the November elections. See ___ F. 4th,
at ___, App. 11a (“[T]he summary judgment record reflects
that any change to the kind of envelopes state and local of
ficials must use for voting by mail will necessarily force the
Plaintiff States to incur monetary and operational costs”
(emphasis in original)). The Court chastises the District Court for “guess[ing]” and “speculat[ing]” regarding the exact “shape” of the final rule. Ante, at 4–5. But such precision is immaterial when well-supported findings of fact indicate that any alteration is injurious.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:eoss3vmzem55cm5kuddhdmwn/bafkreiewzr2xcovhh4ulbgi57x7da5pmegcem2prclccsnj5stj3ydu2sq)
August 25, 2026 at 12:06 AM
The story of today’s SCOTUS decision is the story of SOCTUS 2025–26: pretending Trump isn‘t Trump
Under a replacement Normal President, SCOTUS’ order today would be tendentious but within a realm of defensible
Under Trump, it‘s not even close
Under a replacement Normal President, SCOTUS’ order today would be tendentious but within a realm of defensible
Under Trump, it‘s not even close
Every conservative soctus Justice?
February 3, 2026 at 1:31 PM
Every conservative soctus Justice?
October 25, 2024 at 10:53 AM