Four judges — two Republican and two Democratic appointees — have rejected the Trump administration's arguments in the Illinois case. So, DOJ ran to the justices on Friday.
As soon as the Democrats gain control of the House & Senate, the 1st ISSUE needs to be an intensive Investigation into the SCOTUS & who’s funding them!
Agree, but can we please start calling dictatorship "dictatorship" and not "authoritarianism"? Authoritarianism is an eight-syllable word that a lot of people don't really comprehend; it seems to soften the reality. So if nothing else then from a branding standpoint, we need to start calling Trump a dictator and what he is imposing on America a dictatorship.
I don't think that word fits as Trump is still playing mostly within the bounds, surely stretching them way out of shape, but the bounds are still there.
It was so important that the Federalized guard be immediately deployed, that Hegseth ordered the fat ones to be sent back to Texas and replaced with more photogenic "warfighters."
We are now reaching the crucible moment: Will the Supreme Court defend the People and the Constitution or the Dictator and authoritarian overthrow of our Democratic Republic.
Sadly, I think we know the answer. Hopefully they remember that in Germany, the rich thought they were safe from Hitler. Eventually, Trump will go after the justices, too.
Night of the Long Knives happened in 1934 and had nothing to do with "plutocrats." They went after Ernst Röhm's Sturmabteilung (SA). Brownshirts - thugs and muscle whose origins were anti-capitalist.
I have used the Googles but haven't been able to find an answer. If a state, such as New York, where we know he will also target, were to activate their own National Guard BEFORE he is able to federalise them, does that make him unable to federalise them or is this a time where federal beats out state? If there is not an actual law on the books for that scenario, which does seem unlikely, it definitely seems like it would be worth trying. Even if there were a law on the books for that scenario, I would still be extremely interested to know if a governor could sue for the right to have their states' activation supersede the federalisation of their own National Guard, and use the reasoning that they are beeded to protect their citizens from masked people, with firearms, no warrants, refusing to identify themselves, assaulting, kidnapping, and terrorising their citizens?
I'm seriously just so sick of that shit weasel and his criminal cohorts getting away with trampling on our laws, our citizens, and our constitution.
That's an intriguing question. I think initially the order to federalize would be deemed to supersede the governor's mobilization. But yes, it would absolutely be appealable.
Now suppose, as the result of an appeal, Trump issued an EO similarly specific to the one LBJ issued against George Wallace. That too would be appealable, the more so since EOs don't carry the force of law.
It's the outcome that would be hard to predict. This Court, by showing its recent inability to balance the harms responsibly, has allowed him to temporize and given him the opportunity for far too many faits accomplis. Too much toothpaste; too many tubes.
During the Stand at the Schoolhouse Door, JFK federalized the AL Nat Guard troops Wallace had standing with him… using EO 11111, “Providing Assistance for the Removal of Obstructions of Justice and Suppression of Unlawful Combinations within the State of Alabama”
This is not going to end well for any of us. Given the repeated history of actions by these so-called justices on the shadow docket, I can’t see them saying no to him. If they don’t, expect boots on the ground in every major (and possibly minor) American city within months, if not sooner.
All of these lower and appellate judges are working their damn butts off to explain their rationale, in the terms most applicable to, as you stated, the law, the constitution, and the actual situation on the ground, as to get in what SCOTUS would use as any excuse to rule in his favor.
This court LOVES to say NOTHING should interfere with the what the Executive is doing, harms, merits, or the irrevocable damage they are inflicting, be damned, until the slow death march saunters its way through the normal course of action.
This is why the lower court judges are speaking out and unlike other SHADOW DOCKET rulings favoring TRUMP, this one, is about as serious as giving DOGE SSA INFO, "to do their jobs" before DOGE is or will ever be an actual legal agency.
What jobs?
No one provided this info, for any non-agency, to be able to get the SCOTUS' blessing, when it is a novel/illegal agency, wanting private information, in a novel environment of chaos leading to breaches, to unvetted, drug addled billionaire and young bros.
This is as unserious, though very serious, as the environment doesn't conclude any HARM to anything "FEDERAL" and if anything would do the opposite.
Hopefully, they won't be obtuse enough, although not holding my breath, to rule before tomorrow.
And ban the shadow docket unless an emergency - a rule one, not just Trump's BS. There is no reason whatever for the Court to not follow regular procedure, brief and hear arguments and write an opinion explaining their reasoning. They make use of the shadow docket when they don't want to explain because they know they'll be criticized. Or, at the least, a shadow docket ruling should be given no precedential effect, because there is no opinion supporting the decision.
Remember Gorsuch's arrogant chastisement of a lower court judge for not following the "precedent" established by one of their 1-sentence shadow docket decisions. The judge apologized, but also stuck the knife in just a bit by saying he didn't realize that the Court intended for such a decision to be treated as precedent, because ordinarily such summary dispositions are not given precedential effect.
I'm not an attorney, but I thought that in theory, temporary restraining orders were not appealable. (Only preliminary injunctions or permanent injunctions are appealable.)
Do I have that wrong? Or have the appellate courts all decided the Trump administration can appeal TROs?
Procedurally, they are asking SC(R)OTUS to “stay” the TRO (to prevent it from taking effect). It’s not an “appeal” of the TRO itself. But, in practical terms, the effect of the stay (if granted) would be to nullify the TRO, thus giving the Chump regime the outcome it desires.
And in less asinine quarters, seeking an emergency stay of a TRO is known as an “application for a stay,” not an “appeal.” And there’s a good reason for that: it’s because an application for a “stay” is not an “appeal.” So this desperate (and predictable) maneuver is in fact best characterized as “running to the justices,” as Mr. Geidner has properly observed.
Always nice to read a comment from someone with a closed mind. Call it what you will, it's the next step in order in the process.
And the prevailing notion that the District Court judges have the Right and True - at least, the ones who share your values - and the Supreme Court a group of lickspittle time servers is of course the only valid one.
First of all, I was just making a correction to your incorrect statement. But, If by "closed-minded" you mean that I categorically reject fascism and a police state, then hell yes... I'm absolutely closed fucking minded. But according to the constitution, there are three co-equal branches of government. This notion of a unitary executive is anti-American horse shit. And whether you like it or not, federal judges do have the power to declare a rogue action by the executive unconstitutional. That is how the constitution works my friend.
You also might want to take a moment of introspection before you call someone else close minded. Based on your profile you appear to be pretty firmly entrenched in your own dogma. Good fucking day to you sir.
I know these federal judges putting in the work and the hours are OVER this supreme court and its ridiculous shadow docket rulings
As soon as the Democrats gain control of the House & Senate, the 1st ISSUE needs to be an intensive Investigation into the SCOTUS & who’s funding them!
💯
You’re assuming there will be an election and it will be fair and open. I do not find that assumption tenable.
Which is why the court will do everything it can to prevent that.
He behaves like a child - running to mommy
Exactly what I was thinking! 🤡 Baby!
And Mommy can be counted on to hug baby and making him feel better.
This is straight up authoritarianism.
Agree, but can we please start calling dictatorship "dictatorship" and not "authoritarianism"? Authoritarianism is an eight-syllable word that a lot of people don't really comprehend; it seems to soften the reality. So if nothing else then from a branding standpoint, we need to start calling Trump a dictator and what he is imposing on America a dictatorship.
But real strongmen don’t whine.
Perhaps yet another mold Trump has broken?
Another “best” for our Donald … along with “loudest” and “cringiest”.
And "whingiest".
Exactly right!
I don't think that word fits as Trump is still playing mostly within the bounds, surely stretching them way out of shape, but the bounds are still there.
This bunny calls horsefeathers.
Agree
That was unclear. Agree that we should be using the words dictator or tyrant
It was so important that the Federalized guard be immediately deployed, that Hegseth ordered the fat ones to be sent back to Texas and replaced with more photogenic "warfighters."
Hopefully those whose costumes fit better too.
Might as well dress them in white armour and masked helmets with blasters...
The Ronnie Raygun Brigade.
We are now reaching the crucible moment: Will the Supreme Court defend the People and the Constitution or the Dictator and authoritarian overthrow of our Democratic Republic.
We shall see....
Sadly, I think we know the answer. Hopefully they remember that in Germany, the rich thought they were safe from Hitler. Eventually, Trump will go after the justices, too.
Indeed . . . as well as the plutocrats (e.g Night of the Long Knives)
Night of the Long Knives happened in 1934 and had nothing to do with "plutocrats." They went after Ernst Röhm's Sturmabteilung (SA). Brownshirts - thugs and muscle whose origins were anti-capitalist.
I have used the Googles but haven't been able to find an answer. If a state, such as New York, where we know he will also target, were to activate their own National Guard BEFORE he is able to federalise them, does that make him unable to federalise them or is this a time where federal beats out state? If there is not an actual law on the books for that scenario, which does seem unlikely, it definitely seems like it would be worth trying. Even if there were a law on the books for that scenario, I would still be extremely interested to know if a governor could sue for the right to have their states' activation supersede the federalisation of their own National Guard, and use the reasoning that they are beeded to protect their citizens from masked people, with firearms, no warrants, refusing to identify themselves, assaulting, kidnapping, and terrorising their citizens?
I'm seriously just so sick of that shit weasel and his criminal cohorts getting away with trampling on our laws, our citizens, and our constitution.
That's an intriguing question. I think initially the order to federalize would be deemed to supersede the governor's mobilization. But yes, it would absolutely be appealable.
Now suppose, as the result of an appeal, Trump issued an EO similarly specific to the one LBJ issued against George Wallace. That too would be appealable, the more so since EOs don't carry the force of law.
It's the outcome that would be hard to predict. This Court, by showing its recent inability to balance the harms responsibly, has allowed him to temporize and given him the opportunity for far too many faits accomplis. Too much toothpaste; too many tubes.
During the Stand at the Schoolhouse Door, JFK federalized the AL Nat Guard troops Wallace had standing with him… using EO 11111, “Providing Assistance for the Removal of Obstructions of Justice and Suppression of Unlawful Combinations within the State of Alabama”
When I grow up. I wanna Supreme Court of my own, too.
This is not going to end well for any of us. Given the repeated history of actions by these so-called justices on the shadow docket, I can’t see them saying no to him. If they don’t, expect boots on the ground in every major (and possibly minor) American city within months, if not sooner.
This is also to establish domestic military control before the 2026 elections.
All of these lower and appellate judges are working their damn butts off to explain their rationale, in the terms most applicable to, as you stated, the law, the constitution, and the actual situation on the ground, as to get in what SCOTUS would use as any excuse to rule in his favor.
This court LOVES to say NOTHING should interfere with the what the Executive is doing, harms, merits, or the irrevocable damage they are inflicting, be damned, until the slow death march saunters its way through the normal course of action.
This is why the lower court judges are speaking out and unlike other SHADOW DOCKET rulings favoring TRUMP, this one, is about as serious as giving DOGE SSA INFO, "to do their jobs" before DOGE is or will ever be an actual legal agency.
What jobs?
No one provided this info, for any non-agency, to be able to get the SCOTUS' blessing, when it is a novel/illegal agency, wanting private information, in a novel environment of chaos leading to breaches, to unvetted, drug addled billionaire and young bros.
This is as unserious, though very serious, as the environment doesn't conclude any HARM to anything "FEDERAL" and if anything would do the opposite.
Hopefully, they won't be obtuse enough, although not holding my breath, to rule before tomorrow.
When we retake the
house and senate, the
first thing is to expand
the SCOTUS so it's
equal, then place strict
rules and regulations on
length of service, gifts
and goodies, abolish the
shadow docket, etc.
And ban the shadow docket unless an emergency - a rule one, not just Trump's BS. There is no reason whatever for the Court to not follow regular procedure, brief and hear arguments and write an opinion explaining their reasoning. They make use of the shadow docket when they don't want to explain because they know they'll be criticized. Or, at the least, a shadow docket ruling should be given no precedential effect, because there is no opinion supporting the decision.
Remember Gorsuch's arrogant chastisement of a lower court judge for not following the "precedent" established by one of their 1-sentence shadow docket decisions. The judge apologized, but also stuck the knife in just a bit by saying he didn't realize that the Court intended for such a decision to be treated as precedent, because ordinarily such summary dispositions are not given precedential effect.
It will take the Supreme Septic Six until 11:59 pm tonight to issue the emergency docket order authorizing a nuclear strike on Chicago.
I'm not an attorney, but I thought that in theory, temporary restraining orders were not appealable. (Only preliminary injunctions or permanent injunctions are appealable.)
Do I have that wrong? Or have the appellate courts all decided the Trump administration can appeal TROs?
Procedurally, they are asking SC(R)OTUS to “stay” the TRO (to prevent it from taking effect). It’s not an “appeal” of the TRO itself. But, in practical terms, the effect of the stay (if granted) would be to nullify the TRO, thus giving the Chump regime the outcome it desires.
Oct 17 2025
Response requested by Justice Barrett, due by 5 p.m. (EDT) on October 20, 2025.
"Due deference" the catch-all green flag? Or, more likely, a stay minus opinions by the 5/6 majority.
"Running to the Justices in less impassioned quarters is known as 'filing an appeal'.
And in less asinine quarters, seeking an emergency stay of a TRO is known as an “application for a stay,” not an “appeal.” And there’s a good reason for that: it’s because an application for a “stay” is not an “appeal.” So this desperate (and predictable) maneuver is in fact best characterized as “running to the justices,” as Mr. Geidner has properly observed.
Always nice to read a comment from someone with a closed mind. Call it what you will, it's the next step in order in the process.
And the prevailing notion that the District Court judges have the Right and True - at least, the ones who share your values - and the Supreme Court a group of lickspittle time servers is of course the only valid one.
The reality is a little different.
First of all, I was just making a correction to your incorrect statement. But, If by "closed-minded" you mean that I categorically reject fascism and a police state, then hell yes... I'm absolutely closed fucking minded. But according to the constitution, there are three co-equal branches of government. This notion of a unitary executive is anti-American horse shit. And whether you like it or not, federal judges do have the power to declare a rogue action by the executive unconstitutional. That is how the constitution works my friend.
You also might want to take a moment of introspection before you call someone else close minded. Based on your profile you appear to be pretty firmly entrenched in your own dogma. Good fucking day to you sir.