In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents, handing the White House a rare loss at the high court as the president has sought to send troops to multiple American cities.
“At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said in its unsigned order.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion.
Well Thomas certainly has a history that wouldn't leave you shocked to find him in the files. Alito would probably be more likely to show up in a grindr leak.
I'd say when these insinuations are made about powerful and prominent conservatives, it is not about homosexuality but about hypocrisy. But as a straight person, perhaps I've misread the dynamic.
Its weaponising the abuse of power against those that do it.
If that man is attracted to young boys and abuses his power to act on it...that is not being homosexual, that is being paedophillic. That deserves derision.
No, it doesn't, it will remember those that stood their ground and held the line against this corrupt administration. The quislings won't even be a footnote in the textbooks.
Oh stop like they care. They don't care about legacy they care about the hear and now and how much money they can make. Once they are dead it doesn't matter to them
Gorsuch, I am not as clear on. Is it a “Deference to the Executive” thing where he believes that so long as they have a justification they should be able to do whatever? I only mention it because he’s been typically very anti executive when it comes in conflict with state sovereignty.
Or he just thought the money he gets from being a dissenting opinion that’s sufficiently pro-Trump folds just as well as any other money.
In his dissent, Gorsuch basically writes that he thinks that ruling on this issue involves having to make significant interpretations of too many statutes at once (relative to the court's timeframe and the scope of the arguments presented to them), that he would have rather granted a stay and let it play out in the lower courts longer instead of having SCOTUS rule in either direction, and that he thinks this isn't the right case/context for SCOTUS to draw a line in the sand without the ruling having unintended consequences.
Yes, the conservative principal of "the president can command the military to do whatever they want in America". Everyone knows it went famously well when generals brought their soldiers into Rome. That's why it's so celebratory when Caesar brought his military across the Rubicon.
Neil Gorsuch is a wild card. He wrote the opinion in Mcgirt v Oklahoma and has been very supportive of tribal sovereignty but then he does stupid stuff like this.
I think people should remember forever that almost all Republicans from 2016 to 2025 latched on to and depended on an incompetent abusive pedophile, Trump.
I hate to kill optimism in dark times, but on the whole I think adjusting expectations might do more good than harm. :-/
So, The Supreme Court (the current Court, I mean) has been known to toss out these 'bones' as little wins to norms and what most of the country view as their traditional set of rights ... and every time they do, they're given credit and people start gaining a little bit more confidence back in the institution.
.... then, invariably, they turn around only a week or two later and issue a ruling that is far, far worse in scope and ramifications than the little win that they just gave to common sense. In the long run, one National Guard deployment in one blue city (and just for the time being!) is small potatoes compared to the shenanigans that Trump has already gotten away with. People literally can't sue the Administration fast enough to even come close to keeping track of it all.
This is an easy thing for them to deny him. Of course, Trump is a narcissistic toddler and may not understand this at all besides him not getting his way .... but if his advisors are nudging him in a logical (evil logic, I mean) direction, they'll be telling him to make sure to see the forest and not get so hung up on the trees.
So, what has the Court agreed to evaluate recently .... perhaps something that no previous Supreme Court would even have entertained considering arguments for? Birthright Citizenship. It's literally codified in an Amendment and there should be zero questions about it, but John Roberts has seriously agreed to listen to 'arguments' from MAGA-friendly attorneys about why and how that Amendment could be twisted to allow them to do whatever the hell they want to WHOEVER the hell they want. That's a right-wing wet dream!
I really can't stress enough that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be obligated to hear any case, and is meant to simply decline to hear new arguments on issues that they believe lower courts already ruled correctly on. Even agreeing to hear arguments is a subtle implication that John Roberts, at least, thinks that there's some kind of non-existent wiggle-room in the plain language of the Constitution.
It's not just Trump, but pretty much all of the extremist movement that has glommed on to him, that desperately want to strip the citizenship from a LOT of first-generation American citizens. It doesn't even stop there -- they want to be able to have excuses to strip citizenship even from people with much longer ancestral ties to the land that are considered to be particularly annoying thorns in Donald Trump's side. Rosie O'Donnel fleeing to the safety of Ireland is the first of many such notable Trump-critical individuals (of varying degrees of political power and involvement) that I think we'll see wary to re-enter their native shores.
The one time I had a chance to turn on the news today they were all up in arms about Trump appointing a guy to organize the annexation of Greenland.
Investigative journalism is dead. There is so much more to the Epstein/Trump connection that they haven't even scratched the surface. Why was Trump so "involved" with teenage pageants and modeling agencies? I think we all know the answer. Just waiting for the media to catch up.
Since his presidency he has been under enhance scrutiny so his prime kiddy diddling days were prior to 2016. That was before the GOP establishment decided en masse to get on their knees for Trump.
The statement says "this didn't clear the first hurdle," as in, at the beginning of their investigation, they found zero Constitutional authority for the President to order the military into the US for policing.
This quote kinda says it all:
“Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states – believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, a Democrat. “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state’s objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”
This is the final decision. Usually, Supreme Court ruling are... albeit this court sure does like undoing those...
No this is not a final decision. It was a request for a stay, i.e. the government wanted scotus to block the order while the lawsuit while being appealed. The case itself has not reached them on the merits docket.
Especially since he got away with deploying them for no reason to how many other cities? It's great that one deployment was stalled, but it hasn't stopped all the other ones, and those ones still matter. They ALL should have been blocked.
It feels planned. One little good thing happens and voters are like "finally MAGA is crumbling!" and they get confident and complacent. Which just gives MAGA the momentum to ram through the really heinous and evil shit. And it's happened out in the open plenty this past year.
Pure head fake. This is a trivial case so they can give people the impression that they are not bought and paid for by Trump. They'll rule for Trump in the more important cases.
The masked ICE agents intercepting people at their scheduled immigration court appointments, attacking bystanders and detaining citizens. Who have near zero requirements when it comes to experience or training, who are given guns and riot gear, are “unsafe” and need the big boys to come in and save them
Their basic argument, no kidding, was that generally peaceful protesters are equivalent to an "invading army", which justifies national guard deployment. The Nat Guard is military, so that would also mean that full military deployment would be justified.
That's it.
The 3 dissenters are thus, obviously being controlled somehow. Because it should have been easily unanimous. The justification is completely and proof-demonstrated to be false. So by definition, the dissenters are not judging, they are just doing what they are told to do.
It's like saying, "But Judge, this is obviously a cheeseburger". Judge, "No, that's a chicken sandwich. I rule that it is a chicken sandwich."
Their justification is "the President has unlimited authority to do (basically) whatever he pleases," aka "he's a king." No, I'm not kidding, that's exactly the justification the US argued, in court. And three Supreme Court Justices agreed with that, too.
It seems we have a real problem with the Supreme Court not remembering that silly Constitution document they swore to uphold. Their "unitary executive theory" bullshit completely flies in the face of it, and yet, that's how they're trying to swing the US into a dictatorship.
Military intimidation under the guise of "subduing a rampant crime spree." Same reason Trump deployed the Guard to DC: he claimed DC was a lawless hellscape of rampant crime and violence and needed the Guard to occupy the city to contain it.
He kept up that excuse for a few of the additional occupations but didn't bother after that. Just sent them in cuz he wanted to intimidate democrats.
You've gotten a bunch of different responses here, and none of them matched my understanding. I believe it was the same as LA, where protests and immigration are being considered an "emergency", in which event the federal government is allowed certain powers, one of which is to deploy the national guard. Based on this ruling, it seems the Supreme Court does not agree that Chicago/Illinois is undergoing an "emergency", so the president does not have the power to deploy under that guise
Or they see the writing on the bathroom stalls and know that Trump's Epstein problem is about to be THEIR problem if they keep letting him do wtf he wants!
I mean this is as empty a ruling as there can be. Who is going to stop the admin from doing this?
Additionally, they’ve already ruled the executive cannot be criminally liable for actions they take as part of their official duties, and this ruling covers matters within the executive branch. By their own judicial ruling, the executive doesn’t need to listen to, adhere to, or abide by this court when it comes to matters of the executive.
"Ah shit guys, the dam is breaking and the docs are trickling out, we'd better hedge our bets now while we still can and start ruling against this guy" ACB probably
And then they still didn't listen to ACB, because woman so the Prime Jagoffs dissented lol
And impeachment doesn't actually remove the president. The teeth are in a Senate conviction vote; which of course is contingent upon impeachment first.
Given endless amount of horrid evil shit this "human" has done it should be a summary judgment at this point!
How many times did he get "impeached" his first term? And yet there this partially dried up crusty lump of peach colored PlayDoh remained...and then returned.
I think we should either move to a parliamentary system (essentially a fusion of the Exec & Legislative branches - imagine Trump on the House floor debating ahahahaha) or see if we can't get a bill passed to allow for "No Confidence" vote & immediate removal; plebiscite or public initiative & referendum
Speaking of, why don't we have I & R at the Federal level? And not all states do either!
And impeachment doesn’t actually remove the president. The teeth are in a Senate conviction vote; which of course is contingent upon impeachment first.
That’s why I referred to “the impeachment process” instead of just “impeachment”. I felt the trial and conviction/non-conviction was still part of the same process so I felt it was a more genuine answer. (Though I also assume you’re just elaborating to make sure any lurkers don’t think Impeachment itself is the end of the process)
I’d also add, since we’re discussing it, that one of the major differences is who is “in charge” during the Senate trial. During presidential impeachment proceedings, Chief Justice presides. I think during SCotUS Impeachment proceedings (or those of any federally appointed Judge), the VP is in charge, in their role as President of the Senate.
Apologies! Wasn't trying to be argumentative. I do encounter sooo many politically misinformed folks out in the world who think impeachment is the only step in removal.
And totally agree on the 2nd part!
Every now and then there are little glimmers of hope! But man I can't begin to tell you how many indifferent to all of it people I also run into out in the field. I like talking with people and drive across the country a lot. Probably done 40,000 miles this year alone!
It pains me to see how little of a national "community" sense there is; how many have abandoned the "United" part of U.S. of A.
As likely as we're going to see anybody in a jumpsuit from this administration or government. When was the last time we saw the law applied to these people??
It’s surprising that two of the longest serving “conservative” justices have some of the least Conservative opinions (as understood as the traditional understanding of conservative politics being for a small, limited, federal government).
Or it would be unless you accept the premise that they never actually stood for anything in the first place, and they use words as a fig leaf to avoid backlash for their abhorrent beliefs and positions.
Notice how a bunch of writers at The Heritage Foundation have left recently for things like working with Mike Pence? Fascists and their enablers have always fled the sinking ship throughout history. I hope we see some retribution and justice at the end of this.
If they ruled for the Felon now, every city in the US would have a military presence by the end of January, as it's the only way he'd contain the fallout from the latest document dump.
I guess the Supreme Court Justices didn't want to see the US fall like Germany did in the run-up to World War II, except that they don't realize they've already laid enough track for that anyways.
Either way, it just goes to show how utterly compromised Alito and Thomas are.
It doesn't have to collapse all the way to outright Nazi Germany 2.0 if the American public remember how class solidarity and cooperation work. Instead they all think it's each singular individual up against a titan. Too individualized.
Just for this year. So is Boxing Day. One of Trump's special orders. Congress has to vote to make it permanent. Many agencies are ignoring it. The mail is still being delivered, for example. I swear to God you can't make this up.
That's a strange outcome. With this wording, it seems to imply that the president either must invoke the insurrection act or simply does not have the authority to violate posse comitatus in the first place. Going even further, mentioning regular forces being first before the guard is a scary implication.
Yeah, this seems like a limited "defeat" for Trump when Kavanaugh is basically spelling out ways Trump could circumvent this ruling, and those ways are extremely troubling.
And Trump is already greasing the wheels for it. It's half the point of the international waters Venezuela bombings and the sabre rattling over invading Venezuela itself. If he can arbitrarily order board be exploded at sea and then invade a country without asking anybody first, it kind of leaves the door open for him to just invade his own country arbitrarily.
Of course the most corrupt justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion. Treasonous trump will either not listen and keep the NG there or find another way to terrorize Chicago and kidnap people
Very true about Tomas let’s not forget Kavanaugh raped someone and the GOP defended him and trump severely limited the investigation so the truth would never come out and he’d get confirmed, he’s now doing trumps dirty work
So except for the hardest of Criminals on the court, the more closer to the middle and by closer it's like a few centimeters closer, finally realized that the pedo in chief is done for at this point so they are trying to save themselves from the Trumptanic as it is taking on water from the Iceberg files that have just ripped it open.
“This is a significant repudiation of President Trump’s efforts to use federal troops to supplement immigration enforcement especially in Democratic-led jurisdictions,”
The -real~ repudiation will occur after the mid-terms. The republicans are going to lose the house, effectively hobbling Trump’s agenda.
The race to complete these AI data centers will not occur in time for them to completely brainwash the masses with misinformation. The damage is done. Too many people have been negatively affected by this administration’s policies and blatant disregard for the rule of law and the will of the people.
AI is largely unpopular, and its integration into almost every facet of modern life is being met with monumental pushback and skepticism.
These money drunk oligarchs are going to find out just how badly they’ve miscalculated the will of the American people.
I've been to Chicago twice since he sent the TX national guard. It's been a colossal waste of tax dollars to support this disgusting example of performative politics. Why do they take camera crews everywhere in the 'burbs, but stay away from high-crime areas? And what about his hotel discharging way more waste than allowed into the river that the state and city have worked hard to rehabilitate? So thankful SCOTUS finally said NO!
Good. Makes it a bit tougher for him to deploy the military for another Jan 20 type event. That was one major missing piece for Trump for what happened in 2020 - the insurrectionists were a major but an irregular force.
What if, Kavanaugh hypothesized, an angry crowd gathered outside a federal court house threatening to storm the building
They werent fucking useful for jan 6th because of the president. History shows that it doesnt matter if the president has the power because of political bias in the actual use of powers.
Alito, joined by Thomas, wrote that he “strongly” disagreed with the way the court dealt with the case.
“The court fails to explain why the president’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose,” Alito wrote. “I am not prepared at this point to express a definite view on these questions, but I have serious doubts about the correctness of the court’s views.”
I visited Chicago for much of my life due to loved family members living there. I had my first kiss in Chicago. Lake Shore Drive is a lovely stroll. A friend of mine took me around on the L on a pizza tour of that city. I have endless loving stories about that place. You can complain all you want. I'VE complained about Chicago.
There is no need for a military presence in that place. There is no need for a military presence in that place.
"Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda"
Oh good, so you admit you were deploying the National Guard for no purpose. Seems like something you would not want to say when there are still lawsuits regarding illegal National Guard deployments.
I mean, SCOTUS is also going to overturn Humphrey's Executor and crown Trump as King of all of the United States so what does this matter? They're also on track to overturn birthright citizenship and gut the Voting Rights Act. They've already signaled their intent to elevate Trump to supreme ruler of the nation so what does this matter?
It's a manufacturer small "win" for democracy to make the public think Trump is losing momentum, which in turn makes people more complacent, less likely to vote, and most importantly less likely to protest or organize.
More radical solutions tend to fall off the table when someone thinks they're already starting to win without having done anything yet.
Thanks we're gonna need it. If you want to see an example of what people are up against look up how Republicans broke the ballot initiative here. They've never mentioned fixing it by the way. They're happy to NOT hear from the people they govern.
Saving face by actually acting normally, sure maybe. But where is the "nonsensical" part here? It's described as basic 10th amendment state's rights. You need some sort of compelling reason to justify his actions, they decided they couldn't find one, the end. By default, the feds can't do stuff.
There is a law that allows for an exception "if the laws can't be enforced normally" but there was no good evidence showing that to be the case in Illinois
Interesting to see 2 out of 3 Trump's Justices agree here I wonder if the rats are all trying to get off the sinking ship. I am not surprised at all by the dissent.
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday barred President Donald Trump from deploying the National Guard to Chicago to protect ICE agents, handing the White House a rare loss at the high court as the president has sought to send troops to multiple American cities.
“At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said in its unsigned order.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion.
Of course they did
Still very surprised
They must be seeing the writing on the wall with the Epstein leaks. It's some serious shit.
Well Thomas certainly has a history that wouldn't leave you shocked to find him in the files. Alito would probably be more likely to show up in a grindr leak.
If people think only girls were trafficked, they are very naive, so Alito could very well be in there too
Solid point
I think weaponizing homosexuality and using it in the same arena as Epstein does more to hurt the fight for equality than any humor it might bestow.
I'd say when these insinuations are made about powerful and prominent conservatives, it is not about homosexuality but about hypocrisy. But as a straight person, perhaps I've misread the dynamic.
Its not weaponising homosexuality.
Its weaponising the abuse of power against those that do it.
If that man is attracted to young boys and abuses his power to act on it...that is not being homosexual, that is being paedophillic. That deserves derision.
Yes…. Let’s ignore reality because my feelings. I’m gay and this is silly.
Probably starting to have premonitions of their heads on stakes.
Conservative Justices $amuel Alito, Clarence Thoma$ and Neil Gor$uch dissented from the opinion.
Fixed it for you...
*Injustices
This is the correct correction
You can't spell 'stooge' without these three corporate whores...
History will remember everyone without a backbone
Thomas gets his lumbar support from the bucket seats of his RV.
Ahem. It’s a motorcoach….
"aCkShUaLlY iT's A mOtOrCoAcH!" - Injustice Thomas
Oh who gives a damn about history, we’re getting fucked in modern times and need to find a way to right the ship
No, it doesn't, it will remember those that stood their ground and held the line against this corrupt administration. The quislings won't even be a footnote in the textbooks.
The fact you used the word quisling, negates your entire point. Perhaps an edit to "sycophant'?
Why you yellow bellied, Benedict Arnold! <Runs away in Guy Fawkes mask>
History remembers what the Nazi salute means and loved ones dying to thrm, yet they are emulated today.
Oh stop like they care. They don't care about legacy they care about the hear and now and how much money they can make. Once they are dead it doesn't matter to them
Alito and Thomas have very obvious motivations.
Gorsuch, I am not as clear on. Is it a “Deference to the Executive” thing where he believes that so long as they have a justification they should be able to do whatever? I only mention it because he’s been typically very anti executive when it comes in conflict with state sovereignty.
Or he just thought the money he gets from being a dissenting opinion that’s sufficiently pro-Trump folds just as well as any other money.
In his dissent, Gorsuch basically writes that he thinks that ruling on this issue involves having to make significant interpretations of too many statutes at once (relative to the court's timeframe and the scope of the arguments presented to them), that he would have rather granted a stay and let it play out in the lower courts longer instead of having SCOTUS rule in either direction, and that he thinks this isn't the right case/context for SCOTUS to draw a line in the sand without the ruling having unintended consequences.
Any other timeline, or any other case, I suspect I would respect that. But in the here and now? I’m glad his dissent was in the minority.
Yes, the conservative principal of "the president can command the military to do whatever they want in America". Everyone knows it went famously well when generals brought their soldiers into Rome. That's why it's so celebratory when Caesar brought his military across the Rubicon.
They hope for a dictatorship.
Mind you, Caesar was against a corrupt oligarchy.
Neil Gorsuch is a wild card. He wrote the opinion in Mcgirt v Oklahoma and has been very supportive of tribal sovereignty but then he does stupid stuff like this.
The future which they are clearly slavering for becomes more disturbing by the day.
Evidently
That’s literally what I said. Lol
To reaffirm the pathetic state of the Supreme Court. These three zombies have no place in the justice system.
💡 Technically, a prison is a place in the justice system...
They really do seem like zombies to me. The living dead.
[removed]
Probably to distance themselves from Epstein files.
I think people should remember forever that almost all Republicans from 2016 to 2025 latched on to and depended on an incompetent abusive pedophile, Trump.
Still too early to not include 2026+.
Someone else can add a few years eventually depending on how long the Republicans grovel to Trump.
TLDR: -- Be wary of what may be a feint, and be wary of what may be coming that this tiny win may be intended to distract you from. 😢
------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to kill optimism in dark times, but on the whole I think adjusting expectations might do more good than harm. :-/
So, The Supreme Court (the current Court, I mean) has been known to toss out these 'bones' as little wins to norms and what most of the country view as their traditional set of rights ... and every time they do, they're given credit and people start gaining a little bit more confidence back in the institution.
.... then, invariably, they turn around only a week or two later and issue a ruling that is far, far worse in scope and ramifications than the little win that they just gave to common sense. In the long run, one National Guard deployment in one blue city (and just for the time being!) is small potatoes compared to the shenanigans that Trump has already gotten away with. People literally can't sue the Administration fast enough to even come close to keeping track of it all.
This is an easy thing for them to deny him. Of course, Trump is a narcissistic toddler and may not understand this at all besides him not getting his way .... but if his advisors are nudging him in a logical (evil logic, I mean) direction, they'll be telling him to make sure to see the forest and not get so hung up on the trees.
So, what has the Court agreed to evaluate recently .... perhaps something that no previous Supreme Court would even have entertained considering arguments for? Birthright Citizenship. It's literally codified in an Amendment and there should be zero questions about it, but John Roberts has seriously agreed to listen to 'arguments' from MAGA-friendly attorneys about why and how that Amendment could be twisted to allow them to do whatever the hell they want to WHOEVER the hell they want. That's a right-wing wet dream!
I really can't stress enough that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be obligated to hear any case, and is meant to simply decline to hear new arguments on issues that they believe lower courts already ruled correctly on. Even agreeing to hear arguments is a subtle implication that John Roberts, at least, thinks that there's some kind of non-existent wiggle-room in the plain language of the Constitution.
It's not just Trump, but pretty much all of the extremist movement that has glommed on to him, that desperately want to strip the citizenship from a LOT of first-generation American citizens. It doesn't even stop there -- they want to be able to have excuses to strip citizenship even from people with much longer ancestral ties to the land that are considered to be particularly annoying thorns in Donald Trump's side. Rosie O'Donnel fleeing to the safety of Ireland is the first of many such notable Trump-critical individuals (of varying degrees of political power and involvement) that I think we'll see wary to re-enter their native shores.
Hey CNN? Every time I have turned on the TV today, I’m not seeing huge panels talking about these new leaks
Shouldn’t the news desk be buzzing like crazy? Haven’t seen mention of the baby being thrown in Lake Michigan or anything.
You guys already dropped the ball on Epstein (Katie Johnson story should hve came out before the 2016 election)
Do better.
FWIW it’s all over the front page of their website right now and is like the top 6 stories on there.
Ask the CEO David Zaslav. Its always because someone is protecting themselves.
The one time I had a chance to turn on the news today they were all up in arms about Trump appointing a guy to organize the annexation of Greenland.
Investigative journalism is dead. There is so much more to the Epstein/Trump connection that they haven't even scratched the surface. Why was Trump so "involved" with teenage pageants and modeling agencies? I think we all know the answer. Just waiting for the media to catch up.
The Epstein files are literally front page news
3 justices who don’t care about the law or our 250 yo democracy
I guess Conservatives can't count past two, at least where constitutional amendments are concerned.
Trump gets sucked off by so many Republicans with power, it's a wonder he has anything left to rape children!
Since his presidency he has been under enhance scrutiny so his prime kiddy diddling days were prior to 2016. That was before the GOP establishment decided en masse to get on their knees for Trump.
Why aren’t you reporting on the fact redacted portions of epstein files can be read with adobe?
You have the chance to be truthful to the people.
Have these two dipshits ever been on the correct side of a decision?
Holy shit? Something good for once?
"At this preliminary stage, the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois"
The problem I have with this statement is that this is not a "preliminary stage" - this should be the final decision.
What is fucking preliminary about 6 months of abuse of the National Guard by this shitsnack of an egomanic?
They are slowly rolling out fascism so ignorant Americans don’t notice until it’s too late.
I argue it’s already too late but the slow trickling out of authoritarian features is what’s keeping Americans from saying too much at this time.
The SC will wait until autocracy is more palpable after more bullshit and THEN allow this.
(I’m American)
The statement says "this didn't clear the first hurdle," as in, at the beginning of their investigation, they found zero Constitutional authority for the President to order the military into the US for policing.
This quote kinda says it all:
This is the final decision. Usually, Supreme Court ruling are... albeit this court sure does like undoing those...
No this is not a final decision. It was a request for a stay, i.e. the government wanted scotus to block the order while the lawsuit while being appealed. The case itself has not reached them on the merits docket.
It’s not. It’s a preliminary ruling.
It can still end during a preliminary stage of the process.
Especially since he got away with deploying them for no reason to how many other cities? It's great that one deployment was stalled, but it hasn't stopped all the other ones, and those ones still matter. They ALL should have been blocked.
This is the preliminary stage because litigation is ongoing. This was an appeal of a preliminary injunction.
No, it shouldn't be the final decision. This was an oder on an application for a stay from a TRO.
Idk I feel like every time they hit us with a good decision we get an absolutely devastating one shortly after.
It feels planned. One little good thing happens and voters are like "finally MAGA is crumbling!" and they get confident and complacent. Which just gives MAGA the momentum to ram through the really heinous and evil shit. And it's happened out in the open plenty this past year.
Like they won’t defy it lol
Wouldn't even be the first time he ignored a SCOTUS mandate.
Pure head fake. This is a trivial case so they can give people the impression that they are not bought and paid for by Trump. They'll rule for Trump in the more important cases.
I've been saying: Trump loses often on small scale matters, but always seems to win on the big headline shit.
Even then, he still gets away with more small scale things than he ever should, such as renaming the Kennedy Center.
Okay, I guess that's good. Sad it had to go to the unsupreme court.
What's the reason they're trying to use to justify sending the national guard to Chicago
It’s a lawless hellscape. Except none of that was true.
Racism
The masked ICE agents intercepting people at their scheduled immigration court appointments, attacking bystanders and detaining citizens. Who have near zero requirements when it comes to experience or training, who are given guns and riot gear, are “unsafe” and need the big boys to come in and save them
Their basic argument, no kidding, was that generally peaceful protesters are equivalent to an "invading army", which justifies national guard deployment. The Nat Guard is military, so that would also mean that full military deployment would be justified.
That's it.
The 3 dissenters are thus, obviously being controlled somehow. Because it should have been easily unanimous. The justification is completely and proof-demonstrated to be false. So by definition, the dissenters are not judging, they are just doing what they are told to do.
It's like saying, "But Judge, this is obviously a cheeseburger". Judge, "No, that's a chicken sandwich. I rule that it is a chicken sandwich."
America just dodged a bullet to the head.
You can't blame them, the dancing frog guy was obviously pretty fucking terrifying.
I still see his hip thrusts in my nightmares
Truly terrifying what antifa can accomplish
Their justification is "the President has unlimited authority to do (basically) whatever he pleases," aka "he's a king." No, I'm not kidding, that's exactly the justification the US argued, in court. And three Supreme Court Justices agreed with that, too.
It seems we have a real problem with the Supreme Court not remembering that silly Constitution document they swore to uphold. Their "unitary executive theory" bullshit completely flies in the face of it, and yet, that's how they're trying to swing the US into a dictatorship.
It looks like they didn’t even get that far. They failed to even establish their own basic authority to do that.
Military intimidation under the guise of "subduing a rampant crime spree." Same reason Trump deployed the Guard to DC: he claimed DC was a lawless hellscape of rampant crime and violence and needed the Guard to occupy the city to contain it.
He kept up that excuse for a few of the additional occupations but didn't bother after that. Just sent them in cuz he wanted to intimidate democrats.
Oppression, mainly.
To assist with pulling Trumps cock out of Bovinos mouth.
Crowd control for Ferris Bueller Day
You've gotten a bunch of different responses here, and none of them matched my understanding. I believe it was the same as LA, where protests and immigration are being considered an "emergency", in which event the federal government is allowed certain powers, one of which is to deploy the national guard. Based on this ruling, it seems the Supreme Court does not agree that Chicago/Illinois is undergoing an "emergency", so the president does not have the power to deploy under that guise
The Supreme Court throws us a bone every now and then to try and save face
Something worse, much worse is coming?
That's usually a good bet in times like these.
I was so sure they would rule against his tariffs to cushion allowing him to deploy NG with ICE so Im now guessing tariffs will be deemed legal
I mean it's a pattern at this point. Idk how people are gleaning "MAGA is finally eating itself" from this.
Or they see the writing on the bathroom stalls and know that Trump's Epstein problem is about to be THEIR problem if they keep letting him do wtf he wants!
Fuck them
I mean this is as empty a ruling as there can be. Who is going to stop the admin from doing this?
Additionally, they’ve already ruled the executive cannot be criminally liable for actions they take as part of their official duties, and this ruling covers matters within the executive branch. By their own judicial ruling, the executive doesn’t need to listen to, adhere to, or abide by this court when it comes to matters of the executive.
They ruled that the president has immunity from crimes committed while doing official acts.
They just ruled that sending the national guard there is not a legal official act.
"Ah shit guys, the dam is breaking and the docs are trickling out, we'd better hedge our bets now while we still can and start ruling against this guy" ACB probably
And then they still didn't listen to ACB, because woman so the Prime Jagoffs dissented lol
Idk, they have lifetime appointments, would it matter? Is there a way to remove someone from the bench?
Sure. The same mechanism that exists for removing a sitting President, the impeachment process.
Wanna bet how likely it is?
And impeachment doesn't actually remove the president. The teeth are in a Senate conviction vote; which of course is contingent upon impeachment first.
Given endless amount of horrid evil shit this "human" has done it should be a summary judgment at this point!
How many times did he get "impeached" his first term? And yet there this partially dried up crusty lump of peach colored PlayDoh remained...and then returned.
I think we should either move to a parliamentary system (essentially a fusion of the Exec & Legislative branches - imagine Trump on the House floor debating ahahahaha) or see if we can't get a bill passed to allow for "No Confidence" vote & immediate removal; plebiscite or public initiative & referendum
Speaking of, why don't we have I & R at the Federal level? And not all states do either!
That’s why I referred to “the impeachment process” instead of just “impeachment”. I felt the trial and conviction/non-conviction was still part of the same process so I felt it was a more genuine answer. (Though I also assume you’re just elaborating to make sure any lurkers don’t think Impeachment itself is the end of the process)
I’d also add, since we’re discussing it, that one of the major differences is who is “in charge” during the Senate trial. During presidential impeachment proceedings, Chief Justice presides. I think during SCotUS Impeachment proceedings (or those of any federally appointed Judge), the VP is in charge, in their role as President of the Senate.
Apologies! Wasn't trying to be argumentative. I do encounter sooo many politically misinformed folks out in the world who think impeachment is the only step in removal.
And totally agree on the 2nd part!
Every now and then there are little glimmers of hope! But man I can't begin to tell you how many indifferent to all of it people I also run into out in the field. I like talking with people and drive across the country a lot. Probably done 40,000 miles this year alone!
It pains me to see how little of a national "community" sense there is; how many have abandoned the "United" part of U.S. of A.
All good. Sorry if I came across harsh.
My two fondest wishes would be for everyone to take a good civics course, and for everyone to vote.
(If I get a third wish it’s to uncap the house.)
As likely as we're going to see anybody in a jumpsuit from this administration or government. When was the last time we saw the law applied to these people??
I think it’s only happened once hast it? And there’s been some wild impeachments.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
The Constitution identifies two routes to unseat a Supreme Court judge.
It’s surprising that two of the longest serving “conservative” justices have some of the least Conservative opinions (as understood as the traditional understanding of conservative politics being for a small, limited, federal government).
Or it would be unless you accept the premise that they never actually stood for anything in the first place, and they use words as a fig leaf to avoid backlash for their abhorrent beliefs and positions.
Notice how a bunch of writers at The Heritage Foundation have left recently for things like working with Mike Pence? Fascists and their enablers have always fled the sinking ship throughout history. I hope we see some retribution and justice at the end of this.
If they ruled for the Felon now, every city in the US would have a military presence by the end of January, as it's the only way he'd contain the fallout from the latest document dump.
I guess the Supreme Court Justices didn't want to see the US fall like Germany did in the run-up to World War II, except that they don't realize they've already laid enough track for that anyways.
Either way, it just goes to show how utterly compromised Alito and Thomas are.
It doesn't have to collapse all the way to outright Nazi Germany 2.0 if the American public remember how class solidarity and cooperation work. Instead they all think it's each singular individual up against a titan. Too individualized.
2am truth social meltdown incoming.
Hope he resigns by accident lol
He made tomorrow a federal holiday, so hopefully his handlers will be out of office and we will get some real dementia word salad.
Christmas Eve is now a federal holiday in the US? I hadn’t heard that.
Just for this year. So is Boxing Day. One of Trump's special orders. Congress has to vote to make it permanent. Many agencies are ignoring it. The mail is still being delivered, for example. I swear to God you can't make this up.
I see. Thanks. Sigh. Same as it ever was with this guy.
Another one of his EOs, which hold exactly the same amount of authority as one you or I write.
You mean those executive orders I write every day are worthless? What a disappointment. :-)
OTOH, my cats pay no attention to them so maybe I should have suspected this was the case.
It'll probably be another Stephen Miller rage tour on cable stations.
Ooh, he’s gonna be big mad!
That's a strange outcome. With this wording, it seems to imply that the president either must invoke the insurrection act or simply does not have the authority to violate posse comitatus in the first place. Going even further, mentioning regular forces being first before the guard is a scary implication.
Yeah, this seems like a limited "defeat" for Trump when Kavanaugh is basically spelling out ways Trump could circumvent this ruling, and those ways are extremely troubling.
And Trump is already greasing the wheels for it. It's half the point of the international waters Venezuela bombings and the sabre rattling over invading Venezuela itself. If he can arbitrarily order board be exploded at sea and then invade a country without asking anybody first, it kind of leaves the door open for him to just invade his own country arbitrarily.
Good. Get fucked to death, nazis.
Oh good news!
[Reads article] Jesus Christ there is no amount of authoritarianism Alito will not support!
Genuinely really waiting for the one thing to happen that we all want to
Of course the most corrupt justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the opinion. Treasonous trump will either not listen and keep the NG there or find another way to terrorize Chicago and kidnap people
Thomas still being on SCOTUS years after being outed as a sex pest doesn't give me hope for the Epstein Files actually doing anything to oust Trump.
Very true about Tomas let’s not forget Kavanaugh raped someone and the GOP defended him and trump severely limited the investigation so the truth would never come out and he’d get confirmed, he’s now doing trumps dirty work
So except for the hardest of Criminals on the court, the more closer to the middle and by closer it's like a few centimeters closer, finally realized that the pedo in chief is done for at this point so they are trying to save themselves from the Trumptanic as it is taking on water from the Iceberg files that have just ripped it open.
Best Christmas present I've gotten all year. Now throw the dissenters off, please. This should have been 9-0 against. Clear abuse of power.
Clarence Thomas is 77 years old and probably CTD health wise, so hopefully Anita Hill gets a bit of long-deserved justice soon.
Republicans control all 3 chambers, so they can just ram someone younger and even worse through.
This would pretty much require Thomas to pull an RBG first and the Democratic party to take back both chambers in the midterms.
The house doesn't play a role in scotus appointments, just the Senate. I'm not sure which third chamber you're referring to.
Why is it that the party of small government continuously tries to invade cities within its country?
Hopefully he follows the court order…
“This is a significant repudiation of President Trump’s efforts to use federal troops to supplement immigration enforcement especially in Democratic-led jurisdictions,”
The -real~ repudiation will occur after the mid-terms. The republicans are going to lose the house, effectively hobbling Trump’s agenda.
The race to complete these AI data centers will not occur in time for them to completely brainwash the masses with misinformation. The damage is done. Too many people have been negatively affected by this administration’s policies and blatant disregard for the rule of law and the will of the people.
AI is largely unpopular, and its integration into almost every facet of modern life is being met with monumental pushback and skepticism.
These money drunk oligarchs are going to find out just how badly they’ve miscalculated the will of the American people.
I hope…
I've been to Chicago twice since he sent the TX national guard. It's been a colossal waste of tax dollars to support this disgusting example of performative politics. Why do they take camera crews everywhere in the 'burbs, but stay away from high-crime areas? And what about his hotel discharging way more waste than allowed into the river that the state and city have worked hard to rehabilitate? So thankful SCOTUS finally said NO!
One day, he's going to send troops to the Supreme court after they do their annual "rule against trump"
The citizens may have one justice, as a snack
Good. Makes it a bit tougher for him to deploy the military for another Jan 20 type event. That was one major missing piece for Trump for what happened in 2020 - the insurrectionists were a major but an irregular force.
SCOTUS has finally figured out that rubber-stamping this wannabe dictator's tantrums is only going to bring them down with his flaming, sinking ship.
They werent fucking useful for jan 6th because of the president. History shows that it doesnt matter if the president has the power because of political bias in the actual use of powers.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump, der hat immer recht...
...long after he deployed the national guard to Chicago.
He's living proof its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, and he doesnt ask for forgiveness.
Like when he demolished a third of the white house without permission, and did it fast so that it couldn't be reversed by the time he was told "no."
What does it matter if it's illegal if it's already done? Is the SCOTUS gonna go down there themselves and tell them to leave?
I visited Chicago for much of my life due to loved family members living there. I had my first kiss in Chicago. Lake Shore Drive is a lovely stroll. A friend of mine took me around on the L on a pizza tour of that city. I have endless loving stories about that place. You can complain all you want. I'VE complained about Chicago.
There is no need for a military presence in that place. There is no need for a military presence in that place.
So...he's just going to do it anyway, right? Just like everything else he's been told not to do?
ICE are the invaders and should not be there. Remove ICE and there is no need to protect them.
Trump forget to pay the bribe?
Trump's plan - do it anyway. Wait for the ruling or the lawsuit. Deploy them somewhere else. Repeat.
It's way past too late to try and reel him in now
Bet you can't guess the dissenting justices.
It's a Festivus miracle!
"Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda"
Oh good, so you admit you were deploying the National Guard for no purpose. Seems like something you would not want to say when there are still lawsuits regarding illegal National Guard deployments.
Why there and not anywhere else?
Fuck Trump.
Merry Christmas baby killer!
Justice TradWife has actually surprised me on more than a few rulings the last few years.
She’s still awful, but I am definitely surprised.
Hahaha Trump taking some Ls today
Interesting that they waited until Trump was already taking hits from the Epstein Files to finally rule on this.
Well, that’s one less bs for me to think about here.
I mean, SCOTUS is also going to overturn Humphrey's Executor and crown Trump as King of all of the United States so what does this matter? They're also on track to overturn birthright citizenship and gut the Voting Rights Act. They've already signaled their intent to elevate Trump to supreme ruler of the nation so what does this matter?
It's a manufacturer small "win" for democracy to make the public think Trump is losing momentum, which in turn makes people more complacent, less likely to vote, and most importantly less likely to protest or organize.
More radical solutions tend to fall off the table when someone thinks they're already starting to win without having done anything yet.
Godspeed out there in Mississippi 🫡
Thanks we're gonna need it. If you want to see an example of what people are up against look up how Republicans broke the ballot initiative here. They've never mentioned fixing it by the way. They're happy to NOT hear from the people they govern.
lol a group of hacks trying to save face. What a time line to be alive. Nonsensical ruling that we can’t beleive was actually made
Saving face by actually acting normally, sure maybe. But where is the "nonsensical" part here? It's described as basic 10th amendment state's rights. You need some sort of compelling reason to justify his actions, they decided they couldn't find one, the end. By default, the feds can't do stuff.
There is a law that allows for an exception "if the laws can't be enforced normally" but there was no good evidence showing that to be the case in Illinois
The need for troops. There is no need.
Huh? That sounds like you're referring to Trump's orders, not the "ruling."
Correct!
Oh okay, you said originally:
so it was confusing, ruling would normally refer to the court's decision, not Trump's orders
I’m sorry to confuse you friend !
They’ll give him a much bigger win for something else instead. We’ve seen this show enough times.
He’ll still try
Interesting to see 2 out of 3 Trump's Justices agree here I wonder if the rats are all trying to get off the sinking ship. I am not surprised at all by the dissent.
But now there's like, snow shoveling to do.
I thought Trump was a King ? I thought he was a fascist? Kings and fascists dont usually behave like this.
They gave him an out to use the Insurrection Act
Just when I think the Supreme Court is in Trump's pocket, a ruling like this comes along.
I’m not going to lie I’m actually surprised they didn’t give him a blank check.
Lol funny, when armed forces are involved then they believe in the 10th amendment.