4 ms·

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.wik

by 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
  - stinkbeetle 1y ago
    It's not unanswerable, but it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it even with otherwise reasonable people, sadly. I'm not American so I try not to wade into it too much. I think Americans and everybody is entitled to a basic human right of self-determination, holding, and voting for diverse political beliefs. They have a bunch of shit to sort out and are pretty divided sadly, but so is my country and many others. Now something that America has been known for is extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial executions, foreign "interventions", and that kind of thing. Again I don't say America is unique or even the worst at this by a long shot. Hell, France carried out a state sponsored terrorist action and murder against a civilians in a friendly democracy (New Zealand) within living memory. But America, being the biggest, most influential, and "leader of the free world" gets most of the focus. With those disclaimers out of the way, the presidential immunity ruling did not come as any shock to those outside America and slightly removed from the propaganda war. We've seen W start questionable wars and the whole CIA renditions, Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens, their destruction of Syria and Libya and Iraq, etc. Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder. I'm no legal expert, but the presidential immunity ruling from SCOTUS as far as I could see affirmed existing practice and understanding. If anything it actually restricted presidential immunity because it explicitly limited it to official actions and created some guidelines for how courts could decide how to make that classification. But the reaction online was literally that it made Trump a dictator and it meant he could go personally shooting opposing politicians, judges, and bureaucrats with no consequences! People who believed that of course will categorize that decision as extreme. But the reality seems to be the opposite, extreme (not as a value judgement but in terms of distance from status quo of both sides of mainstream politics) would have been to rule the other way and permit the prosecution of presidents for executive actions, because presumably then the DOJ would have begun cases against Obama, W, as well for their criminal and now prosecutable actions in office.
    - elcritch 1y ago
      > Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens Yes, so many Americans forget about this or gloss over it. Even the fact you’re getting downvoted show how biased most folks are. Trump has in many ways done less than previous administrations. He just makes it very public and brash. > Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder. Which leaves me with mixed feelings. The idea that the President basically gets to do whatever he wants as long as congress won’t impeach him is scary for the rule of law. However on the other hand, it does allow the President the power to do things that may need doing. It’s been that way since Thomas Jefferson sent the marines to fight Barbary wars without congresses approval. Perhaps earlier.

by adrr 1y ago

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
- stinkbeetle 1y ago
  It's not unanswerable, but it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it even with otherwise reasonable people, sadly. I'm not American so I try not to wade into it too much. I think Americans and everybody is entitled to a basic human right of self-determination, holding, and voting for diverse political beliefs. They have a bunch of shit to sort out and are pretty divided sadly, but so is my country and many others. Now something that America has been known for is extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial executions, foreign "interventions", and that kind of thing. Again I don't say America is unique or even the worst at this by a long shot. Hell, France carried out a state sponsored terrorist action and murder against a civilians in a friendly democracy (New Zealand) within living memory. But America, being the biggest, most influential, and "leader of the free world" gets most of the focus. With those disclaimers out of the way, the presidential immunity ruling did not come as any shock to those outside America and slightly removed from the propaganda war. We've seen W start questionable wars and the whole CIA renditions, Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens, their destruction of Syria and Libya and Iraq, etc. Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder. I'm no legal expert, but the presidential immunity ruling from SCOTUS as far as I could see affirmed existing practice and understanding. If anything it actually restricted presidential immunity because it explicitly limited it to official actions and created some guidelines for how courts could decide how to make that classification. But the reaction online was literally that it made Trump a dictator and it meant he could go personally shooting opposing politicians, judges, and bureaucrats with no consequences! People who believed that of course will categorize that decision as extreme. But the reality seems to be the opposite, extreme (not as a value judgement but in terms of distance from status quo of both sides of mainstream politics) would have been to rule the other way and permit the prosecution of presidents for executive actions, because presumably then the DOJ would have begun cases against Obama, W, as well for their criminal and now prosecutable actions in office.
  - elcritch 1y ago
    > Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens Yes, so many Americans forget about this or gloss over it. Even the fact you’re getting downvoted show how biased most folks are. Trump has in many ways done less than previous administrations. He just makes it very public and brash. > Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder. Which leaves me with mixed feelings. The idea that the President basically gets to do whatever he wants as long as congress won’t impeach him is scary for the rule of law. However on the other hand, it does allow the President the power to do things that may need doing. It’s been that way since Thomas Jefferson sent the marines to fight Barbary wars without congresses approval. Perhaps earlier.