9 ms·

That sort of instability is so damaging beyond the boundaries of his term. Hopefully this restores a bit of confidence.

ascendantlogic 1y ago
The Supreme Court is determined to give him unfettered power to do whatever he wants so I'm sure once it reaches them they'll strike down whatever the lower court does to stop him.
- adrr 1y ago
  Amazing how Trump gets unfettered power and Biden gets reeled in. Almost prevented Biden from rolling back a Trump EA when Biden was in power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Texas
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Amazing how Trump gets unfettered power and Biden gets reeled in If we look at how often the justices voted in favour of each administration in emergency applications when the government was the filer, we get Sotomayor and Jackson favouring Biden with a 77-point margin (88 to 11 percent and 77 to 0 percent, respectively), Alito favouring Trump with a 77-point margin (95 to 18%), and Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts with 48, 26 and 21-point margins [1]. On the whole, Trump has been successful 84% of the time against Biden's 53%. But my point is that the partisan fracture of our court--on the level of individual justices--has been happening for a while. (The fact that we have (a) Alito, who's a hack and (b) a decadelong conservative majority is more explanatory than e.g. Barrett or Roberts having gone to the dark side.) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court-emergency-docket-partisan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court...
    - wahnfrieden 1y ago
      Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme and unprecedented in both ways? If one side is providing milder work, then I would expect higher agreeability. Otherwise there is something fishy with both sidesing it. Obviously it is impossible to answer this without projecting some bias. But I don't think that makes it unanswerable.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme in both ways? It's really difficult to answer this separate from one's biases. I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1]. This was a deliberate choice by both Presidents. > there is something fishy with both sidesing it Didn't mean to both sides this, at least not at the level of the Court. The Court has had a conservative majority for a decade; one could argue Jackson and Sotomayor are balancing the court by leaning against its centre of pressure. But it's not unexpected for the Court to be a bit more deferential towards a Republican President. We haven't been appointing and confirming neutral arbiters for a while. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Since_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Since_2017
        matthewdgreen 1y ago
        > I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1] The President does not choose to use the shadow docket. The use of the shadow docket is controlled by the court justices, who (as you pointed out) have been a conservative majority for a decade. You are correct that the use of the shadow docket increased under Trump and then Biden, but this is consistent with the (somewhat obvious) explanation that the conservative justices began to use this tool as a partisan weapon for Trump and the GOP and then later against Biden's policies.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > President does not choose to use the shadow docket. The use of the shadow docket is controlled by the court justices Oh wow, I didn't know this [1]. Thank you...what in the actual fuck. I'm having trouble parsing how the shadow docket relates to a party requesting emergency relief. Do you have a good source on this? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Procedure
- bpodgursky 1y ago
  Eh. They have broadly ruled with the admin on staffing decisions. I would not at all extrapolate that to unlimited regulation of economic activity; it would be something of a reversal of their known stances on regulatory authority of federal agencies. I'm not making bets either way.
  - nerdponx 1y ago
    Considering that they already reversed a major precedent that specifically applies to the regulatory authority of federal agencies, I don't see why we wouldn't expect them to do it again.
LeoPanthera 1y ago
It will take a generation for the reputation of the USA to be restored, even if we start right now.
- rootusrootus 1y ago
  You’re an optimist. I think we have lost a great deal of soft power that can never be regained. Because even if the next guy is normal, the citizens that decided this is what they wanted will continue to exist for decades after Trump is gone. There’s no reason for non-Americans to assume this is some kind of one-off anomaly and not a sea change in the culture of the US.
  - nerdponx 1y ago
    Consider also that America became powerful as a product of being in the right place at the right time. There is no reason to believe that such a place and time will exist again.

The Supreme Court is determined to give him unfettered power to do whatever he wants so I'm sure once it reaches them they'll strike down whatever the lower court does to stop him.

adrr 1y ago
Amazing how Trump gets unfettered power and Biden gets reeled in. Almost prevented Biden from rolling back a Trump EA when Biden was in power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_v._Texas
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Amazing how Trump gets unfettered power and Biden gets reeled in If we look at how often the justices voted in favour of each administration in emergency applications when the government was the filer, we get Sotomayor and Jackson favouring Biden with a 77-point margin (88 to 11 percent and 77 to 0 percent, respectively), Alito favouring Trump with a 77-point margin (95 to 18%), and Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts with 48, 26 and 21-point margins [1]. On the whole, Trump has been successful 84% of the time against Biden's 53%. But my point is that the partisan fracture of our court--on the level of individual justices--has been happening for a while. (The fact that we have (a) Alito, who's a hack and (b) a decadelong conservative majority is more explanatory than e.g. Barrett or Roberts having gone to the dark side.) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court-emergency-docket-partisan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/14/us/politics/supreme-court...
  - wahnfrieden 1y ago
    Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme and unprecedented in both ways? If one side is providing milder work, then I would expect higher agreeability. Otherwise there is something fishy with both sidesing it. Obviously it is impossible to answer this without projecting some bias. But I don't think that makes it unanswerable.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme in both ways? It's really difficult to answer this separate from one's biases. I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1]. This was a deliberate choice by both Presidents. > there is something fishy with both sidesing it Didn't mean to both sides this, at least not at the level of the Court. The Court has had a conservative majority for a decade; one could argue Jackson and Sotomayor are balancing the court by leaning against its centre of pressure. But it's not unexpected for the Court to be a bit more deferential towards a Republican President. We haven't been appointing and confirming neutral arbiters for a while. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Since_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Since_2017
      - matthewdgreen 1y ago
        > I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1] The President does not choose to use the shadow docket. The use of the shadow docket is controlled by the court justices, who (as you pointed out) have been a conservative majority for a decade. You are correct that the use of the shadow docket increased under Trump and then Biden, but this is consistent with the (somewhat obvious) explanation that the conservative justices began to use this tool as a partisan weapon for Trump and the GOP and then later against Biden's policies.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > President does not choose to use the shadow docket. The use of the shadow docket is controlled by the court justices Oh wow, I didn't know this [1]. Thank you...what in the actual fuck. I'm having trouble parsing how the shadow docket relates to a party requesting emergency relief. Do you have a good source on this? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Procedure
bpodgursky 1y ago
Eh. They have broadly ruled with the admin on staffing decisions. I would not at all extrapolate that to unlimited regulation of economic activity; it would be something of a reversal of their known stances on regulatory authority of federal agencies. I'm not making bets either way.
- nerdponx 1y ago
  Considering that they already reversed a major precedent that specifically applies to the regulatory authority of federal agencies, I don't see why we wouldn't expect them to do it again.

LeoPanthera 1y ago

It will take a generation for the reputation of the USA to be restored, even if we start right now.

rootusrootus 1y ago
You’re an optimist. I think we have lost a great deal of soft power that can never be regained. Because even if the next guy is normal, the citizens that decided this is what they wanted will continue to exist for decades after Trump is gone. There’s no reason for non-Americans to assume this is some kind of one-off anomaly and not a sea change in the culture of the US.
- nerdponx 1y ago
  Consider also that America became powerful as a product of being in the right place at the right time. There is no reason to believe that such a place and time will exist again.