The Debate Dividing the Supreme Court's Liberal Justices (NY TIMES)

[ificandream]

Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/us/politics/supreme-court-kagan-jackson-liberal-justices.html?unlocked_article_code=1.xk8.Ztoy.E-ov4b15GAMc&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

------
The Debate Dividing the Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices
Outnumbered and facing vast stakes, Justices Kagan and Jackson are split over the best approach: investing in diplomacy inside the court or sounding the alarm outside.

By Jodi Kantor
Jodi Kantor’s reporting illuminates the Supreme Court. She welcomes tips at nytimes.com/tips.
Oct. 31, 2025
On a yearslong campaign to sway her conservative colleagues, Justice Elena Kagan has mostly refrained from harshly criticizing them. But two years ago she briefly let her discipline slip.

As they prepared to strike down President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s student loan forgiveness program, she blasted Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in a draft dissent she circulated within the court, according to several people familiar with the episode.

But before the decision went public, she hit delete. Her final dissent was adamant, but the most heated passages never saw daylight, as she abided by a taboo among the justices against steaming publicly at colleagues or the institution.

For years, as the court has moved right, Justice Kagan has agonized over whether to be more confrontational, confidantes say, and has mostly concluded that to be effective, she must be careful about rocking the boat.

[Jbraybarten]

1. The conservatives crossed a line in 2000 with the Bush v Gore decision & repeatedly since, it's more than past...

...time for the liberal justices to "go there."

Roberts and the right wingers are not playing by the rules. And they certainly aren't "calling balls and strikes" as Roberts proclaimed 20 years ago.

[Mme. Defarge]

2. EXACTEMENT!!!

[dem4decades]

3. That's always the problem, Democrats play nice while Republicans kick them in the head.

[Haggard Celine]

4. At least a couple of the Justices are traitors,

and it's time to out them. Thomas, Alito, maybe more. They're going to give the government to Donald Trump if they aren't stopped somehow.

[Dave says]

5. "They're going to give"?

They already have. The immunity decision means Trump gets to do whatever he wants.

[Haggard Celine]

6. There will be many more cases.

And there might be a Constitutional crisis if the Court ever decides to say no to Trump, especially if it's related to martial law. But it remains to be seen if they're going to give him complete autonomy. If the Court hands down a decision like that, there might be a rebellion.

[Dave says]

7. The only limits to his power are ...

1. People refusing to obey his orders.

2. The SCOTUS ruling actions in cases that fall to them are not in the scope of presidential responsibilities, ie., they are private actions not covered by the immunity bestowed by the court.