The Supreme Court's disturbing indifference to unconstitutionality and illegality

[Along Came Jones]

It is not going to go well.

Considering a preview of their docket, any decision favoring the Trump administration may be bone chilling in their consequences. To say the least . . .

 

[Juks]

I've noted before that criminals "get away with it" because they are more willing to brazen than their victims. It's more shock than pacifism.

That is how fascism takes over. It is a criminal enterprise. I use that term advisedly. Authoritarians come in many flavors, but fascists are a particular type. What we are experiencing is fascism in action. Many of the participants - LE personnel from other agencies dragooned into participating in ICE's storm trooper actions (and even DHS personnel), military personnel engaged in murder in the Caribbean, Congress members - do so reluctantly, and then mechanically. It is conditioning them as much as the population. They are accustomed to following instructions, not bucking "the system".

It only takes a few dedicated zealots to corrupt that system - 6 jurists, even fewer media owners, a dozen Cabinet members, a few dozen US Attorneys, a few Senators and Congress members in leadership positions. They wield such power because we all buy into the existing structure.

But now that "norm" - that system - is being used against us for nefarious purposes. It is hard to process just how abnormal this is.

Thank you for articulating this so clearly. I tried to describe the same feeling. That shock, not pacifism, is what keeps people passive.

 

[j brown's body]

When one party controls a branch of government for generations, its bound to become imperious.

 

[j brown's body]

The far right of the court is giving significant power to the executive branch. I suppose that a lot of us hope that things will eventually return to a previous version of normal somehow, but the further this goes, the more difficult that becomes.

The court has to be concerned that Trump will attack their legitimacy by ignoring one or more of their decisions

 

[multivita-man]

In one case, the Supreme Court chastised a lower court for following the law instead of taking a cue from their shadow docket decision that is not law.

It's tripartite support for the establishment of violent oligarchy. The Executive brings force to bear while the Legislative and Judicial strategically abdicate their powers to enable it.

 

[Athanasius68]

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

Perhaps the problem are the district courts straying from their lane.

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

The counter would be a lone district judge obstructing the operations of the Executive branch in whatever area it is seeking to do.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

Or perhaps is exercising his lawful power.

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

The executive branch has power.
It can actually 'do things.'
That, politically, some do not approve of those things it wishes to do does not therefore mean the issue becomes a judicial issue.
As Justice Barret said earlier this year, the job of the courts is not as some sort supervisor of the executive branch.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The hysterics aside, Trump was democratically elected.
What is the pont of an election, if things are not allowed to change as a result of the election?

 

[Athanasius68]

Many Americans (and Westerners in general) are educated in the idea that “everything can be debated.” But when a political movement no longer acknowledges the same fundamental rules of the game; facts, truth, institutions, justice, then discussion ceases to be rational. It becomes a tool for delay, denial, and normalization. A constitutional structure is being stretched to its breaking point. And as before, a kind of moral cognitive dissonance is the most immediate reaction. The mind wants to analyze, weigh arguments, think in nuances… while the body and intuition scream: “this is wrong, this is dangerous.” And it is precisely that dissonance that makes many people passive. They believe they are still being objective, when in fact it is the situation itself that has become irrational. Courts, government agencies, and the media are institutions built on trust and norms, not merely on legal text. When those norms are consistently violated, the entire structure erodes rapidly.

It is therefore not hysterical to speak of a threat to democracy. It is empirically correct to speak of a democratic decay unfolding in real time, while parts of the population still believe they are engaged in an ordinary partisan struggle.

My German mother (born in 1925) told me enough stories for me to understand that the same thing happened in Germany in the 1930s. As I’ve said before: all the way up to Kristallnacht. And then it was too late to do anything about it. In Germany, many citizens believed that the rule of law, the army, and the bureaucracy would stand up to extremism. In reality, they adapted, not out of malice, but out of a desire to avoid chaos. Most believed they were preserving stability. In fact, they were greasing the wheels of tyranny.

So its 'democratic' for the unelected bureacracy to "stand up" to the elected government?

What is really happening here is that Mr. Trump was democratically elected, many people do not like that he was democratically elected, and do not like what he wants to do/ or is tryig to do.
So they are "undemocratically" demanding that the courts stop him, rather than relying upon 'democracy' to do so.

 

[NWRatCon]

The court has to be concerned that Trump will attack their legitimacy by ignoring one or more of their decisions

Now is the time for the Court to take a stand for democracy. I don't believe they are capable of that any longer.

 

[NWRatCon]

I fully expect this Court to "legitimize" the worst depravities of Trump and the regime. They are wholly anti-democratic and anti-constitutional at this point. The actions they take will destroy the last semblance of a constitutional republic. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I've been disabused of any remaining respect for the revanchist cabal that controls the Court. We can blame John Roberts and Mitch McConnell for conspiring to end democracy as we know it in their pursuit of ideological power. They, more than even Trump, are responsible for the fascism we are enduring. I don't expect free and fair elections for the rest of my life. I'll miss the United States. 250 years was a good run.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

The hard right Congress and Senate work in concert with the hard right Supreme Court, as planned.

 

[Athanasius68]

Now is the time for the Court to take a stand for democracy. I don't believe they are capable of that any longer.

Given that Mr. Trump was democratically elected less than a year ago, but given the general tenor of the poster thus far, its not clear what "take a stand for democracy" actually means.

It is to be expected that SCOTUS will not be as confused as the previously quoted Mr. Griffin, who seems to be unable to distinguish between politial issues and judicial issues.

 

[Gaius46]

If the Trump haters didn't have an agenda to mount a court challenge to everything Trump does, there wouldn't be a need for the Supreme's emergency docket.

And yes, it IS an agenda. It was planned and announced before Trump was even elected.

Now, you can screech about "blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions"...just like all of these frivolous lawsuits are doing, but the buck stops at the Supreme Court. Get over it.

Except the supreme court hasn't actually ruled on any of them so whether they are illegal remains to be seen.

 

[Mycroft]

Except the supreme court hasn't actually ruled on any of them so whether they are illegal remains to be seen.

You should probably check again. They've ruled on over 20 of the lawfare cases.

 

[soap box]

You should probably check again. They've ruled on over 20 of the lawfare cases.

Which ones were lawfare cases?

Emergency Docket 2025-26

View previous term The Supreme Court’s interim docket, also known as the emergency docket or the shadow docket, consists of applications seeking immediate action from the court. These cases are […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Mycroft]

Which ones were lawfare cases?

Emergency Docket 2025-26

View previous term The Supreme Court’s interim docket, also known as the emergency docket or the shadow docket, consists of applications seeking immediate action from the court. These cases are […]

www.scotusblog.com

sigh...

I'll let Copilot answer for me...

how many of the lawfare court cases against trump have been resolved by the supreme court

Summary of Supreme Court Involvement in Trump-Related “Lawfare” Cases
As of October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved or issued emergency rulings in at least 20 cases that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump. These include challenges to executive actions, agency dismissals, immigration policies, and national security directives.
Here’s a breakdown based on current litigation trackers and reporting:

Supreme Court Activity Overview​

Category	Count	Notes
Emergency Docket Rulings	21	Includes stays and interim orders favoring Trump’s administration【4†】【5†】
Full Supreme Court Decisions	18	Includes final rulings on constitutionality and executive authority【5†】
Pending Cases	Several	Oral arguments scheduled for late 2025 on tariffs, agency independence, and removal protections【4†】

Examples of Resolved Cases​

• Ban on transgender individuals in the military – Upheld via emergency ruling.
• Mass firings of federal employees – Allowed pending full review.
• Removal of agency officials with statutory protections – Temporarily permitted under executive authority.
• Deportation to third countries with no ties – Allowed while litigation continues.

Legal Implications​

• The Court has increasingly used its “shadow docket” to issue unsigned, expedited rulings that favor Trump’s executive actions.
• These decisions often precede full hearings, shaping policy outcomes before constitutionality is fully adjudicated.
• Critics argue this undermines lower courts and expands presidential power; supporters claim it reflects lawful executive discretion.

 

[NWRatCon]

Given that Mr. Trump was democratically elected less than a year ago, but given the general tenor of the poster thus far, its not clear what "take a stand for democracy" actually means.

It is to be expected that SCOTUS will not be as confused as the previously quoted Mr. Griffin, who seems to be unable to distinguish between politial issues and judicial issues.

But, I at least he can spell them.

 

[NWRatCon]

sigh...

I'll let Copilot answer for me...

how many of the lawfare court cases against trump have been resolved by the supreme court​

​

Summary of Supreme Court Involvement in Trump-Related “Lawfare” Cases​

As of October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved or issued emergency rulings in at least 20 cases that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump. These include challenges to executive actions, agency dismissals, immigration policies, and national security directives.​

Here’s a breakdown based on current litigation trackers and reporting:​

​

Supreme Court Activity Overview​

​

Category	Count	Notes
Emergency Docket Rulings	21	Includes stays and interim orders favoring Trump’s administration【4†】【5†】
Full Supreme Court Decisions	18	Includes final rulings on constitutionality and executive authority【5†】
Pending Cases	Several	Oral arguments scheduled for late 2025 on tariffs, agency independence, and removal protections【4†】

​

Examples of Resolved Cases​

• Ban on transgender individuals in the military – Upheld via emergency ruling.
• Mass firings of federal employees – Allowed pending full review.
• Removal of agency officials with statutory protections – Temporarily permitted under executive authority.
• Deportation to third countries with no ties – Allowed while litigation continues.

​

Legal Implications​

• The Court has increasingly used its “shadow docket” to issue unsigned, expedited rulings that favor Trump’s executive actions.
• These decisions often precede full hearings, shaping policy outcomes before constitutionality is fully adjudicated.
• Critics argue this undermines lower courts and expands presidential power; supporters claim it reflects lawful executive discretion.

Didn't even notice that even this directly refutes your baseless claims: "

• These decisions often precede full hearings, shaping policy outcomes before constitutionality is fully adjudicated."

CoPilot obviously knows more about the subject than you do.

 

[soap box]

Emergency Docket 2024-25

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket, consists of applications seeking immediate action from the court. Unlike the merits docket, these cases are handled on an […]

www.scotusblog.com

sigh...

I'll let Copilot answer for me...

how many of the lawfare court cases against trump have been resolved by the supreme court​

​

Summary of Supreme Court Involvement in Trump-Related “Lawfare” Cases​

As of October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved or issued emergency rulings in at least 20 cases that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump. These include challenges to executive actions, agency dismissals, immigration policies, and national security directives.​

Here’s a breakdown based on current litigation trackers and reporting:​

​

Supreme Court Activity Overview​

​

Category	Count	Notes
Emergency Docket Rulings	21	Includes stays and interim orders favoring Trump’s administration【4†】【5†】
Full Supreme Court Decisions	18	Includes final rulings on constitutionality and executive authority【5†】
Pending Cases	Several	Oral arguments scheduled for late 2025 on tariffs, agency independence, and removal protections【4†】

​

Examples of Resolved Cases​

• Ban on transgender individuals in the military – Upheld via emergency ruling.
• Mass firings of federal employees – Allowed pending full review.
• Removal of agency officials with statutory protections – Temporarily permitted under executive authority.
• Deportation to third countries with no ties – Allowed while litigation continues.

​

Legal Implications​

• The Court has increasingly used its “shadow docket” to issue unsigned, expedited rulings that favor Trump’s executive actions.
• These decisions often precede full hearings, shaping policy outcomes before constitutionality is fully adjudicated.
• Critics argue this undermines lower courts and expands presidential power; supporters claim it reflects lawful executive discretion.

Those aren't regarding lawfare. Let's remind ourselves of the claims of lawfare. These were concerning the Smith indictments, the NY cases.
These were claimed as lawfare because of the unfounded claim that there was no evidence.

I want to thank you and commend you, in all sincerity, that you included an important sentence in the result. Now I understand your claim, and reject it. You and the computer think lawfare is anytime Trump doesn't like the result. If a lower court rules against Trump, how is that lawfare?
By your new definition, lawfare is any time trump doesn't like a ruling.

In order to claim lawfare on all the cases you have cited, pick one and explain how there was no case to be made.

Otherwise, it's called litigation.

Which reminds me of the important sentence. The computer has said that trump supporters think it's lawfare, but no one else does.

It was very transparent to include this, I do appreciate the candor:

"that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump."

 

[Mycroft]

Those aren't regarding lawfare. Let's remind ourselves of the claims of lawfare. These were concerning the Smith indictments, the NY cases.
These were claimed as lawfare because of the unfounded claim that there was no evidence.

BS.

All of the cases brought since Trump was elected are nothing but lawfare...and yes, the Supremes have been knocking them down as soon as they are set up.

 

[soap box]

sigh...

I'll let Copilot answer for me...

how many of the lawfare court cases against trump have been resolved by the supreme court​

​

Summary of Supreme Court Involvement in Trump-Related “Lawfare” Cases​

As of October 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved or issued emergency rulings in at least 20 cases that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump. These include challenges to executive actions, agency dismissals, immigration policies, and national security directives.​

Here’s a breakdown based on current litigation trackers and reporting:​

​

Supreme Court Activity Overview​

​

Category	Count	Notes
Emergency Docket Rulings	21	Includes stays and interim orders favoring Trump’s administration【4†】【5†】
Full Supreme Court Decisions	18	Includes final rulings on constitutionality and executive authority【5†】
Pending Cases	Several	Oral arguments scheduled for late 2025 on tariffs, agency independence, and removal protections【4†】

​

Examples of Resolved Cases​

• Ban on transgender individuals in the military – Upheld via emergency ruling.
• Mass firings of federal employees – Allowed pending full review.
• Removal of agency officials with statutory protections – Temporarily permitted under executive authority.
• Deportation to third countries with no ties – Allowed while litigation continues.

​

Legal Implications​

• The Court has increasingly used its “shadow docket” to issue unsigned, expedited rulings that favor Trump’s executive actions.
• These decisions often precede full hearings, shaping policy outcomes before constitutionality is fully adjudicated.
• Critics argue this undermines lower courts and expands presidential power; supporters claim it reflects lawful executive discretion.

Notice how the computer put "lawfare" in quotation marks, what was the computer saying by that?

 

[Mycroft]

Notice how the computer put "lawfare" in quotation marks, what was the computer saying by that?

That's the word I used in my question to Copilot. Copilot understood exactly what I was talking about.

Anyway, you are deflecting away from my comment to another member. I'll leave you to talk to yourself about that.

Bye.

 

[soap box]

BS.

All of the cases brought since Trump was elected are nothing but lawfare...and yes, the Supremes have been knocking them down as soon as they are set up.

That's not true, because several were stays of executions.

That's lawfare only if you support trump.
The rest of us don't, so its reply telling you what the computer thinks you want to hear.

Please pick one case and tell me why it's lawfare, meaning you can explain why there were no grounds to start the fillings.

Why did the computer use quotation marks for the word "lawfare"?

"that critics often categorize under the umbrella of “lawfare” against President Donald Trump."

 

[soap box]

That's the word I used in my question to Copilot. Copilot understood exactly what I was talking about.

Anyway, you are deflecting away from my comment to another member. I'll leave you to talk to yourself about that.

Bye.

Why did you use quotation marks in the prompt? Let's look more closely. If you used quotation marks in the prompt, were you trying to tell the computer that it's only so-called lawfare? Why would you do that? Have you posted the word here anytime with quotation marks that say, "it's called lawfare, but we know it's not" .



Now, why would you put the word in quotation marks in the prompt?

The computer used the quotation marks to show that it's only true for Trump voters. Nobody else would use the word for those cases. Mainly because Trump's not the defendant in any of them.

 

[soap box]

Ask AI Questions · Question AI Search Engine · iAsk is a Free Answer Engine - Ask AI for Homework Help and Question AI for Research Assistance

iAsk.Ai (iAsk™ AI) is an advanced free AI search engine that enables users to Ask AI questions and receive Instant, Accurate, and Factual Answers. Our free Ask AI Answer Engine enables users to ask questions in a natural language and receive detailed, accurate responses that address their exact...

iask.ai

How many of the lawfare court cases against trump have been resolved by the supreme court?


"The Supreme Court has not yet issued final rulings on the merits of any of the "lawfare" court cases against Donald Trump as of October 6, 2025. However, the Court has frequently sided with the Trump administration in interim rulings, allowing executive actions to proceed while cases wind through lower courts."

My computer beat up his computer har har LOL!

 

[Felis Leo]

Over a series of "star chamber" orders during the Trump regime's existence, the Supreme Court has consistently sided with allowing blatant illegality and unconstitutional actions of Trump to continue. This is not normal. Indeed, it is unprecedented - in every sense of the word.

Until the advent of Trump, emergency requests to the Supreme Court from the government were extremely rare. Over the entire 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, eight were filed and only four granted. During Trump's first term alone, 41 were filed and 28 granted. Child's play:

"Since Trump returned to office on January 20, the court has acted in 23 cases on an emergency basis involving his policies, siding with him fully or partially 21 times, with one case declared moot.
In doing so, the court has expanded how it uses its emergency power, following at least six different legal paths to side with Trump, usually in decisions powered by the conservative justices, a Reuters analysis has found."

US Supreme Court expands its 'emergency' docket - and Trump's power too (Reuters, Oct 2, 2025)​

This is appalling. "These decisions have let Trump's aggressive and sometimes novel uses of executive authority proceed largely unhindered before their legality is fully determined, increasing his power in ways that critics have said undermines Congress and the various federal judges who have ruled against him." In short, the "conservative" majority is letting him "move fast and break things" - in this case, norms, the law, and the Constitution.

This is far from normal. A truly conservative Court (hence the "scare quotes") would preserve the status quo until an informed decision is reached. This Court is not doing so. "The actions by the justices have expanded the emergency docket's "effective power without the court formally acknowledging it," Bradley University law professor Taraleigh Davis said.

This expansion in turn boosts Trump's power, Davis added, because if administration officials know they are "likely to receive a stay on the emergency docket they can implement controversial policies immediately and fight the legal battle with the policy already in effect."

The court in emergency decisions has let Trump ban transgender people from the military, carry out mass firings of federal employees, remove agency officials despite statutory job protections and deport migrants to countries where they have no ties like South Sudan, to name a few, while litigation continues in lower courts. The practical effects of some of these decisions could be hard to unwind even if plaintiffs eventually win on the legal merits.

"These aren't decisions that somehow maintain the status quo. If they give the president the benefit of the doubt, that might mean that your husband ends up in an El Salvador prison ... that means your research doesn't get funded," Tulane University constitutional law professor Stephen Griffin said." It can legitimately be argued that some of these actions have led directly to the deaths of thousands of people already - with the stalling and destruction of USAID provisions to starving, and ill people - with tens or hundreds of thousands to follow.

The Roberts Court is acting immorally, unethically, and, in reality, unconstitutionally. They are as guilty as the regime itself for its depravities.

Wait…their side has finally won complete control of the Federal government in decades with a leader who recognizes no boundary on the exercise of his powers. Why would conservative justices who are nothing more than Christian social Darwinists want to put any holds or constraints on their side’s power?