2026 SCOTUS Thread

[Caribbean Hen]

A win for sanity.

Something so basic

Unbelievable this went to Supreme Court

[UNI88]

Trump Loses It at Supreme Court Justices Who Voted Against Him

“I got a decision on tariffs that’s going to cost our country... hundreds of billions, potentially, of refunds,” Trump told attendees at the dinner, which was held in D.C’s Union Station. “Giving them back to people that have been ripping off our country because the Supreme Court didn’t want to put one little sentence that all money taken in up till this date doesn’t have to be paid back,” he continued. “Going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. So sad to see.”
...
“And not that it matters, doesn’t matter at all,” he continued. “But two of the people that voted for that I appointed and they sicken me. They sicken me because they’re bad for our country,” he added, referring to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he appointed during his first term.
...
In response to the ruling, the president decried the judges as “lap dogs,” adding that they were a “disgrace to our nation” and “disloyal to the Constitution.” He also accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and unidentified “slimeballs” from other countries.

Should we compare the foreign interests allegedly swaying SCOTUS to the foreign interests that the trump regime has been influenced by and profiting off of?

[BDKJMU]

How many times has KBJ been the 1 in 8-1 decisions now? The dumbest SCOTUS pick in the last half century.

Kagan turns on liberal ally Jackson with footnote jab over free speech
Kagan said Jackson's dissent ignored the "well-settled distinction" between viewpoint-based and content-based speech restrictions

Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan criticized Jackson for failing to acknowledge case law that governs when speech can be regulated in the medical field, marking a rare public break between two justices typically aligned in cases centered on high-profile cultural issues.

"Justice Jackson’s dissenting opinion claims that this is a small, or even nonexistent, category," Kagan wrote in a footnote of a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. "But even her own opinion, when listing laws supposedly put at risk today, offers quite a few examples."

Kagan, an Obama appointee, said Jackson’s view "rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions."

The 8-1 decision on Tuesday arose from a lawsuit brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian therapist, who argued her conversations with youth clients were a form of protected speech. The Colorado government had said the conversations amounted to professional conduct that the state was allowed to regulate.

Jackson’s fiery 35-page dissent, which she read from the bench when the high court announced the opinion, was longer than the majority opinion and Kagan’s concurrence combined…..

….One conservative lawyer on social media observed that Kagan seemed "exasperated" by Jackson, who has become known as a verbose justice inclined to tack on lengthy solo dissents to the majority's opinions in prominent cases. Manhattan Institute’s Ilya Shapiro agreed.

"That should be a separate descriptor of an opinion: concurring, dissenting, expressing exasperation with Justice Jackson," Shapiro wrote on X….

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kagan- ... ree-speech

[BDKJMU]

Not AI. This is real.