Gorsuch and Kavanaugh put their thumbs on the scale

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh warn lower court judges in Trump cases

In Donald Trump’s long-running feud with federal judges, the president has found some support in an unlikely place: the nation’s highest court.

A growing sense of frustration with some lower courts — articulated in terms that at times sound similar to Trump’s own rhetoric — has crept into a series of opinions this summer from the Supreme Court’s conservative justices as they juggle a flood of emergency cases dealing with Trump’s second term.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch admonished in an opinion last week tied to the court’s decision to allow Trump to cancel nearly $800 million in research grants.

The rebuke, which was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, flipped the narrative that it is Trump who has pushed legal boundaries with his flurry of executive orders and support for impeaching judges who rule against him. A wave of legal conservatives took to social media to tout Gorsuch’s warning.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-supreme-court-justices-frustrated-080042070.html

[Walleye]

1. What he saying is the only person that can defy court orders is the orange president

[Irish_Dem]

2. All power must go to Trump. He is the White House, Supreme Court, Congress all rolled into one.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. "never free to defy them"

Says who?

[stopdiggin]

7. might be why it's called the supreme court .. ? Just as a guess.

[spanone]

4. Worse fucking scotus ever.

[stopdiggin]

5. hasn't the supreme court ALWAYS been the final arbiter .. ?

The final word? With lower courts expected (if not mandated) to follow ...
Fail to see where this statement (or concept behind it) breaks any new ground ...

Perhaps this is just another case of a singularly poor choice of quote (source) employed in the effort to illustrate a larger point intended in the article (and headline)? In any event - it dropped with a thud.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[stopdiggin]

8. I've gone back and re-read ...

either very poor writing - very poor articulation (ability to convey) - or a very poor understanding of the subject matter author is trying to cover.

- The rebuke, which was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, flipped the narrative that it is Trump who has pushed legal boundaries with his flurry of executive orders and support for impeaching judges who rule against him. A wave of legal conservatives took to social media to tout Gorsuch’s warning.

Except that is NOT what the statement said. (or even implied) So - stands as either a complete misreading, or an (intentional) misstatement?, of what the Gorsuch statement / 'rebuke' actually said. That statement simply articulated (long standing) jurisprudence - that lower courts must follow higher. Nothing about 'flipping' .... And nothing about Trump, or agenda. This was plainly, and transparently - aimed at the lower courts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Only "unlikely" up to 2000

After the decision in the Florida recount case, designed to ensure a Republican president rather than to accurately determine the result of the election, it was clear the Supreme Court might support a Republican president over the concepts of "justice", "law", "the Constitution", "democracy" or "fairness". And since he got 3 supporters on it, to add to the 3 conservatives (2 of them extreme) already there, it's not "unlikely", it's "expected".

[WestMichRad]

9. Yet they have decided that stare decisis doesn't bind them.

Arrogant, hypocritical bastards!