4 ms·

Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.

petcat 8mo ago
You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?
- indoordin0saur 8mo ago
  You don't need to have access to everything for it to be insider trading, just more than the general public. Lutnick would know what case they are making to the court, perhaps the confidence of the attorneys in winning as well as information on how the case was going.
  - parineum 8mo ago
    All of that is based on public knowledge, including the confidence of attorneys.
  - tacticalturtle 8mo ago
    Supreme Court transcripts of arguments are posted to supreme court.gov the same day the arguments are made: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2025 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... There’s no secret sauce here - their guess as to how the case is going is as good as any outside observer, and based on the questions made by the justices.
danielmarkbruce 8mo ago
No, because "the government" isn't one blob. The court system is separate from the administration. And the supreme court justices aren't giving the internal deliberations to someone in the administration, especially when the administration is one of the parties in the case.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Even FDR knew the 'separation' was a farce, that's how he magically got the court to go along with progressive programs they prior didn't support, after the 'Switch in time that saved nine.' SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so. ------ re: "2 of 3" below due to throttling-------- A vote to refund here was not a vote against the admin, it was a vote to simplify the laundering of the tax. It was a vote to put the money straight into the coffers of admin insiders like Lutnick et al financial engineering scheme. Meanhwile it did not invalidate tariffs, as Trump immediately pivoted to a different tariff structure. As a second note, the profit here was actually not dependent nearly as much on the vote as the insider information. The fact the best any rebuttal can come up with is the vote might have been 'wrong' is basically totally defaulting to the insider trading element which means you are totally yielding the underlying premise. That is, the only 'vote' against the admin in this case would be one that went against their insider information. Failure to note this is how the justices and admin have swindled you and the public. The very posing of this comment of rayiner et al reveals how they tricked you.
  - rayiner 8mo ago
    But 2 of those 3 voted against Trump! And 2 of the ones who voted for him were nominated by a free-trader republican.
  - parineum 8mo ago
    > .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Following that logic, it make sense that those 3 voted with the administration. Oh wait...

petcat 8mo ago

You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?

indoordin0saur 8mo ago
You don't need to have access to everything for it to be insider trading, just more than the general public. Lutnick would know what case they are making to the court, perhaps the confidence of the attorneys in winning as well as information on how the case was going.
- parineum 8mo ago
  All of that is based on public knowledge, including the confidence of attorneys.
- tacticalturtle 8mo ago
  Supreme Court transcripts of arguments are posted to supreme court.gov the same day the arguments are made: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2025 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... There’s no secret sauce here - their guess as to how the case is going is as good as any outside observer, and based on the questions made by the justices.

danielmarkbruce 8mo ago

No, because "the government" isn't one blob. The court system is separate from the administration. And the supreme court justices aren't giving the internal deliberations to someone in the administration, especially when the administration is one of the parties in the case.

mothballed 8mo ago
.... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Even FDR knew the 'separation' was a farce, that's how he magically got the court to go along with progressive programs they prior didn't support, after the 'Switch in time that saved nine.' SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so. ------ re: "2 of 3" below due to throttling-------- A vote to refund here was not a vote against the admin, it was a vote to simplify the laundering of the tax. It was a vote to put the money straight into the coffers of admin insiders like Lutnick et al financial engineering scheme. Meanhwile it did not invalidate tariffs, as Trump immediately pivoted to a different tariff structure. As a second note, the profit here was actually not dependent nearly as much on the vote as the insider information. The fact the best any rebuttal can come up with is the vote might have been 'wrong' is basically totally defaulting to the insider trading element which means you are totally yielding the underlying premise. That is, the only 'vote' against the admin in this case would be one that went against their insider information. Failure to note this is how the justices and admin have swindled you and the public. The very posing of this comment of rayiner et al reveals how they tricked you.
- rayiner 8mo ago
  But 2 of those 3 voted against Trump! And 2 of the ones who voted for him were nominated by a free-trader republican.
- parineum 8mo ago
  > .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Following that logic, it make sense that those 3 voted with the administration. Oh wait...