UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 11:27 am67% of injunctions this century have been against trump. Could that be because trump has signed more potentially unconstitutional/illegal executive orders than any other President?
If family members donating to the Democratic Party/candidates is proof that they're activists doesn't the same hold true for family members donating to the Republican Party/candidates? It looks like aileen cannon contributed to deconkis. Does that make her an activist judge who can't be trusted? What about all of those perks that alito and thomas have received? Why do MAQA yahoos make a big deal about these things when Democrats benefit but dismiss them when their candidates/causes benefit?
Her whining response once she gets fact checked is delicious. Good post. To add additional numbers:
(no link here. It’s from a FB by a good friend who’s CEO of a data analytics firm.(
Judges across ideological lines are ruling against Trump at strikingly similar rates (84% liberal, 86% centrist, 82% conservative). This isn't partisan opposition to Trump—it's the judiciary functioning as intended by cutting across partisan lines to uphold the Constitution.
Here is the breakdown by ideological groupings. While liberal judges heard more cases (due to geography and venue selection), the consistency of rulings across ideological lines demolishes the narrative that judicial decisions against Trump reflect political bias.
Modeling the outcomes with a logistic regression confirms that judicial ideology doesn't predict ruling outcomes. This isn't commonly the case—ideology is typically a moderate to strong predictor of case outcomes, making this ideological consensus particularly noteworthy.
The pattern diverges from what @mayasen.bsky.social and I found during Trump's first term, when judge ideology strongly predicted case outcomes. What changed? The nature of the challenges—today's cases pose more fundamental constitutional violations uniting judges across partisan divides.
Trump's attacks on judges—including Republican appointees—for unfavorable rulings reveals an authoritarian assault that should alarm us all. Demanding judicial loyalty over constitutional fidelity represents a dangerous erosion of separation of powers, the cornerstone of our Madisonian republic.
When judges across the ideological spectrum reach similar legal conclusions about attacks on our Constitution, we should see it for what it is: a flashing warning sign that we are facing a clear and present danger to our democratic and constitutional order.
