Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If the SCOTUS sides with Trump and his EO using the IEEPA to declare a "national emergency, " citing the US trade deficit, then we are truly screwed. We might as well put a crown on Trump's head and all go home if that happens. Never mind that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, I have a trade deficit with the grocery store every week, but you don't see me declaring I'm going to impose a 100% tariff on them, do you? Don't get me wrong, some trade deficits can be bad, but overall, that was not the case for the US, and there sure as heck was no "national emergency."

"If the SCOTUS sides with Trump and his EO using the IEEPA to declare a "national emergency, " citing the US trade deficit, then we are truly screwed."

That's what I expect from them although they'll frame it, again, under the guise that Trump has the "executive power" to do it rather than addressing the merits of the case.  Before doing that, however, they may slow walk it and carve it up into individual pieces and send it back to the lower courts who will languish over the meaning of the SCOTUS actions and either decide in Trump's favor or, if against it, the case will be again appealed back to SCOTUS who will ultimately decide it Trump's favor.
In either case, I also expect Jim Brown to come back and tell us all how correct the SCOTUS decision really is and what a bangup job the Roberts court has done for the nation. 

"We might as well put a crown on Trump's head and all go home if that happens."

SCOTUS has pretty much already done that, dude....

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hogwash

As usual, SCOTUS today sides yet again with Trump WITHOUT EXPLANATION:

"Supreme Court allows Trump to continue ‘roving’ ICE patrols in California"

"The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s push to allow immigration enforcement officials to continue what critics describe as “roving patrols” in Southern California that lower courts said likely violated the Fourth Amendment."

"The court did not offer an explanation for its decision, which came over a sharp dissent from the three liberal justices."

In a terse statement, the man who has perfected the art of a distinction without a difference, Bret  Kavanaugh, had this to say:

“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’...:"

"The court itself offered only a single paragraph of boilerplate language in siding with Trump."
“The court’s order is troubling for another reason: It is entirely unexplained,” Sotomayor wrote. “In the last eight months, this court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/08/politics/supreme-court-ice-patrols-california

Originally Posted by James Brown

Last comment - Sotomayor makes good points too.  She assumes that California will be able to prove that the ICE agents are simply grabbing and arresting Hispanics in LA without even checking to see if they are citizens or not.  If those are indeed the facts (after a factual hearing is held) then I expect that Kavanaugh will join a majority ruling that this policy as implemented is unconstitutional.  

Rod, I'd guess you assume bad actions and bad intent by ICE too.  Assumptions are not enough in court, thank goodness.

You've responded to a number of points but, rather than quote and respond individually to each post, I'll try to respond in a single posting.

First, if, in fact, Kavanaugh is detailing the majority opinion rather than his own, then I'd agree that CNN and other reporting erred in their statement that the court did not provide the explanation but I would not state(or accept) they lied about it. Initial reports can either incorrect or partially correct, and then updated at a later time to reflect more accurate information. If, in fact, Kavanaugh is writing his own opinion, then it does not necessarily speak for the majority nor does it necessarily provide a majority explanation for a decision even though he concurs with it. The majority of justices may have other reasons for their decisions. 

That said, if in fact, ICE operates in a manner so-described by Kavanaugh in his opinion, then I'd agree it's operating optimally under the pressures of Tom Homan, Stephen Miller and Noem to fulfill Miller's daily quotas. If, on the other hand, it functions as described in a contrary manner described by the minority justices in the case as well as the court that initially rendered its decision, then I'd agree that Kavanaugh would need to revisit this again as you so stated in your response.

That said, I'd disagree that this is specific to the districts in California and agree with CNN reporting that other districts elsewhere will take the decision as tacit approval for their actions. So, I think we all hope they function in a manner described by Kavanaugh in his opinion....

Looking at the AI response, I see the following and it's evident the chart James provided is skewed significantly to Trump's first term in office and,IMO, qualitatively involving less controversial issues than those recently decided in Trump's second term: :

"During his first term, Donald Trump had the lowest Supreme Court win rate of any modern president, though his record has improved significantly since returning to office in January 2025. This success has primarily been on the "emergency docket" for specific policies rather than on the merits docket for broader legal issues."

"As of September 2025, Donald Trump's administration has a successful track record with the Supreme Court, particularly through emergency applications to the "shadow docket"."

"Since returning to office in January 2025, the Trump administration has frequently used the Supreme Court's emergency docket, winning most of its applications. These emergency requests are decided quickly, without the full briefing and oral arguments of regular cases, and have been controversial among lower-court judges and some legal experts."

"Notable victories include":

"Expansion of executive power. The Court has repeatedly sided with the administration to let it proceed with actions that have been blocked by lower-court orders. For example, the court allowed the firing of Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, expanding presidential authority over independent agencies."

"Immigration policy. The Supreme Court has enabled the administration to proceed with hardline immigration policies while legal challenges play out. This includes allowing deportations to resume, ending temporary protections for certain migrants, and lifting lower-court orders that had halted other policies.
Narrowing of judicial power. In June 2025, the court sharply curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies. This was a win for Trump's administration in a case related to his directive on birthright citizenship."


"Narrowing of judicial power. In June 2025, the court sharply curtailed the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies. This was a win for Trump's administration in a case related to his directive on birthright citizenship."

Originally Posted by James Lacey

We can quibble over details, but I think what I learned overall is that the data doesn't seem to show that courts are biased toward helping Trump or shielding him from wrongdoing.

We'll know for sure and soon enough:

"The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will take up whether President Trump can use emergency powers to justify sweeping tariffs on trading partners across the globe, agreeing to the administration’s request to hear its appeal — and fast."

"The expedited schedule will have the justices take the bench for oral arguments in the first week of November, a late addition to the calendar."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5494684-supreme-court-trump-tariffs/

You've already indicated your feelings about a SCOTUS decision in favor of Trump for that one. 

It'd be interesting to see if you could run a graph for the number of emergency and expedited hearings granted to Trump and another for those heard on the shadow docket in comparison to other presidents. And, perhaps, yet another for those decided on the shadow docket without explanation...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

We'll know for sure and soon enough:

"The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will take up whether President Trump can use emergency powers to justify sweeping tariffs on trading partners across the globe, agreeing to the administration’s request to hear its appeal — and fast."

"The expedited schedule will have the justices take the bench for oral arguments in the first week of November, a late addition to the calendar."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5494684-supreme-court-trump-tariffs/

You've already indicated your feelings about a SCOTUS decision in favor of Trump for that one. 

It'd be interesting to see if you could run a graph for the number of emergency and expedited hearings granted to Trump and another for those heard on the shadow docket in comparison to other presidents. And, perhaps, yet another for those decided on the shadow docket without explanation...

Definitely on topic!: Breaking news! add Trump's latest SCOTUS win today (shocking!), delivered by John Roberts himself!

"Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. The high court order is temporary, though it suggests that the justices will reverse a lower court ruling that withholding the funding was likely illegal."

https://apnews.com/live/donald-trump-news-updates-9-9-2025

And the hits just keep on coming...

Question: Which president has the longest consecutive win streak in SCOTUS decisions? Think hard, I know it's a real toughie! If you took a wild guess and said Donald John Trump, you win a cookie because you're right! Who could be more deserving than him?...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I am not able to dig into the merits of this one in depth since I’m traveling again.  But it is clear that in your point of view, Trump always exceeds his authority and this Court’s temporary or final deference to executive authority is always (a) wrong and (b) partisan.  

Please consider the possibility that granting or withholding foreign aid is well within proper executive authority.   Like I quoted yesterday, (the long blue quote) it is not the Court’s job to second guess the executive, if he is reasonably within his Constitutional authority.

Elections have consequences.   The Ds should run a proper campaign next time and then they can implement foreign aid policies more to your liking.

Hmm, the reality is more like Trump always is within his executive authority and the lower and appellate courts are always wrong when they find otherwise and only the brilliant minds of the federalist society folks in SCOTUS are correct when they overturn the decisions in favor of Trump, and at last count, around 17 or so cases consecutively...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Part of the reason for this, though, is that a) Trump loves doing controversial and provocative stuff. We could have a whole discussion about his style in this regard. Still, the point is, the more you act the way Trump does, the more often you are going to be challenged in court, and b) Trump and his cohorts are purposely pushing the envelope regarding executive power and authority, and using the court system to do it. So, yes, Trump has the longest consecutive win streak, but he has the longest streak of court cases going to the SCOTUS in general. He probably has the longest consecutive losing streak, too.

"Still, the point is, the more you act the way Trump does, the more often you are going to be challenged in court, and b) Trump and his cohorts are purposely pushing the envelope regarding executive power and authority, and using the court system to do it."

And he is increasingly being enabled to do it by SCOTUS, particularly by their snap decisions done in the shadow docket with little or no explanation. As I've noted in a prior post, the "court system", as you call it, consisting of the lower and appellate courts, have generally found to the contrary only to see their lengthy decision making process being obviated in the docket in record time and at a rapid pace...

Thanks for the images, Maurice. The eclipse wasn't visible from here in SoCal, having occurred prior to moonrise.

I had a great view of the Titan transit on Saturn earlier in the week, though, and a relatively rare event, too. I had excellent transparency and good seeing that allowed me to use a 10mm ethos eyepiece together with a 2" 2x ED barlow in my 16" astrostems dob. So, I essentially had a 5mm eyepiece on my rig with an enormous field of view that made it a pleasure to track the event. It was quite the show and I'm glad I had the opportunity to view it...