Deeply divided Supreme Court lets NIH grant terminations continue
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
IANAL. Does this decision not say, in practical terms, that a new administration can arbitrarily defund by terminating grants anything and anyone they want, for whatever reason, because the legal action required to restore funding must take so long that any person/project that depends on said funds will be forced to seek other employment before that action concludes? (Even if it is a slam dunk case that the defunding is against statute or unconstitutional.)
Upvote
307
(309
/
-2)
The anti-democratic wing of the Supreme Court has stopped bothering to explain their actions. Why should they? The people are not yet holding them accountable.
Upvote
309
(314
/
-5)
Clear as mud and half as coherent. What a great clarifier of law and process we have in this court of Originalists.
Last edited:
Upvote
132
(133
/
-1)
ReadandShare
Ars Centurion
"But Roberts abandoned them in the entirety"
Chief Justice Roberts started as a conservative judge. Nowadays, his views are considered "centrist" at best by the MAGA folks. Shows how our court has shifted ever more to the right (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh).
But my fear is that the litmus test for MAGA Republicans today isn't even about conservative vs. liberal anymore. What matters to them now is loyalty to Donald Trump.
Chief Justice Roberts started as a conservative judge. Nowadays, his views are considered "centrist" at best by the MAGA folks. Shows how our court has shifted ever more to the right (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh).
But my fear is that the litmus test for MAGA Republicans today isn't even about conservative vs. liberal anymore. What matters to them now is loyalty to Donald Trump.
Last edited:
Upvote
211
(216
/
-5)
It's amazing what intricate knots these "conservative" judges can tie themselves into, trying to dress up their various blatantly ideological and partisan decisions as carefully reasoned conclusions based solely on law, the Constitution, precedent, and principles of sound jurisprudence
Upvote
218
(222
/
-4)
I don't expect this court to always be reasonable, but this seems remarkably incompetent. There's a point where the court should just state that they can't agree and will decide not to issue a ruling at all, leaving it to the appeals court. That would have been more sensible under the circumstances. This is just a mess.
Upvote
155
(157
/
-2)
There needs to full investigations into these guys, especially Clarence Thomas. The things he's known for should have already landed him an impeachment twice over.
Upvote
176
(178
/
-2)
That would have been sensible, but when half of them are party loyalists and some of them are nakedly corrupt, there was never any chance of them leaving it to the lower courts' discretion because those courts ruled in a way their own masters oppose.
Upvote
106
(109
/
-3)
What appeals court? This is the Supreme Court Of The United States.
Edit: oh, I see what you mean - they should have left the lower court’s ruling to stand, since SCOTUS had no consistent opinion on the matter.
Upvote
74
(74
/
0)
Anyway, this is a pretty clear case of “justice delayed is justice denied”. And of course this Supreme Court loves to deny justice.
Upvote
184
(185
/
-1)
When both SCOTUS and POTUS are corrupt, you're fucked. Oh, yeah, so is Congress... corrupt, that is. We The People, are fucked.
Upvote
148
(149
/
-1)
Even worse when You The People have a Constitutional Amendment that specifically exists to deal with this kind of tyranny but it is also moot because (a) most of the people who really like that amendment are on the side of the tyrants and (b) the corrupt government has a military that would would drone strike other Americans as easily as it drone strikes Afghan weddings.
Upvote
100
(106
/
-6)
ReadandShare
Ars Centurion
I don't disagree with you, but I would drill deeper. When ~42% of all adult Americans are fucked - and those 42% can be counted on to vote - then We the People are fucked.
So the next question: why are a whopping 40+% of us are so discontented? My own hunches:
1. Some White voters pining for the 'good old days' of "God, country, apple pie" are actually racist at heart even if they won't ever admit it. A society where Brown and Yellow people share leadership and participation is just grating when Whites used to run 'everything'. And DEI irritates them particularly.
2. Voters of every color expect law and order in their neighborhoods. Citizens and people who arrive legitimately do not appreciate a flood of undocumented immigrants vying for their jobs. And the poor who can't afford to move into safer / more upscale neighborhoods are truly disillusioned with their state and local governments. LA (where I live) is a prime example.
3. Many believe (or want to believe) that Trump is the knight in shining armor, protected by God Himself! Or it's just 'fun and refreshing' watching him beat up on world leaders. Or MAGA just sounds so positive and attractive. Some people just love this sort of thing - which is why reality TV where folks get booted out or fired by some mean SOBs is popular.
We are failing to learn from history - where extreme nationalism, fascism, xenophobia all lead to bad endings.
Last edited:
Upvote
27
(53
/
-26)
They decided to follow the old adage "Better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt of it."
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh chose to ignore that guidance, poor fellows.
Upvote
84
(84
/
0)
Hey SCOTUS, the government has been irreparably harmed by DOGE and its corruption, not by the pocket change it might lose a rounding error in researchers spending money, well, researching.
Upvote
74
(77
/
-3)
My father was a trial attorney, and once argued a case before the Supreme Court. He was proud of this milestone and had a framed copy of the brief (? not sure what that legal paper would be called, IANAL). I wish he was still around just to hear his withering critique of today's joke of a system.
Rest in peace, Dad, you are missing a comedy of tragic proportions.
Rest in peace, Dad, you are missing a comedy of tragic proportions.
Upvote
121
(121
/
0)
IAAL. The rules that the current SCOTUS plays by are basically Calvinball. Whatever the rules are today, they'll be something different tomorrow; the only thing consistent is that they'll find some mealy-mouthed way to let this administration continue doing whatever it wants to do.
Upvote
175
(177
/
-2)
As awful as the current president is...he is awful, in large part, because of his enablers.
And chief among them are the conservatives of the Supreme Court.
I fear for my country, now and in the future.
And chief among them are the conservatives of the Supreme Court.
I fear for my country, now and in the future.
Upvote
95
(97
/
-2)
Don't let them off so easily, they're also ideologically motivated above and beyond bribery. They are fascists enabling a fledgling fascist.
Upvote
73
(76
/
-3)
Regardless of partisan feelings about which way the court rules on any given topic, the judiciary of the United States is in crisis at this point.
Even if someone disagrees with a ruling, as long as that ruling is based on consistent and principled reasoning and philosophy of law then the bedrock of the rule of law is still sound.
When any justice of any political or ideological persuasion rules based on whatever is most opportune for their political or ideological preferences at that given moment, you no longer have the rule by law, you have rule by personal opinion.
When I took a law class, one of the things I was surprised to find was that there is no statutory requirement for justices to explain the reasoning behind their rulings, but that it had become standard practice because future rulings are usually based on the reasoning of prior rulings.
There have been rulings I've personally disagreed with but could understand the reasoning behind them. Refusing to disclose the reasoning behind a ruling suggests to me that there either wasn't any, or that the reasoning is recognized to be faulty from the get-go.
Even if someone disagrees with a ruling, as long as that ruling is based on consistent and principled reasoning and philosophy of law then the bedrock of the rule of law is still sound.
When any justice of any political or ideological persuasion rules based on whatever is most opportune for their political or ideological preferences at that given moment, you no longer have the rule by law, you have rule by personal opinion.
When I took a law class, one of the things I was surprised to find was that there is no statutory requirement for justices to explain the reasoning behind their rulings, but that it had become standard practice because future rulings are usually based on the reasoning of prior rulings.
There have been rulings I've personally disagreed with but could understand the reasoning behind them. Refusing to disclose the reasoning behind a ruling suggests to me that there either wasn't any, or that the reasoning is recognized to be faulty from the get-go.
Upvote
151
(153
/
-2)
It's funny you should mention Calvinball, because Jackson's dissent uses it too:
"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins."
Upvote
205
(207
/
-2)
"Two of them, Thomas and Alito, would have granted the government a lift of all aspects of the stay, but chose not to explain their reasoning"
A 2026 kitted out RV would be reason enough for one of these folks.
Anyway, nice of Gorsuch to tell us that WOKE and DEI are in fact just words the right screams when they want their way.
A 2026 kitted out RV would be reason enough for one of these folks.
Anyway, nice of Gorsuch to tell us that WOKE and DEI are in fact just words the right screams when they want their way.
Upvote
69
(71
/
-2)
No. All these rulings are for Trump and any other MAGA GOPer. Once a Dem is President, The SCOTUS folks will forget they even were in session during Trump's tenure.
Last edited:
Upvote
61
(63
/
-2)
With members that include not one but at least two sexual predators and one genuine, clinically insane cult member, calling this court 'deeply divided' is a wild mischaracterization. It's not 'divided.' It's corrupt and illegitimate. Two of the justices belong in prison, and another belongs in an institution, undergoing extensive deprogramming.
But then, the same is true of a whole lot of MAGAmerica, so of COURSE those would be the 'justices' they pick....
But then, the same is true of a whole lot of MAGAmerica, so of COURSE those would be the 'justices' they pick....
Upvote
32
(47
/
-15)
Funny how acts of the Biden administration were consistently called "major questions" requiring congressional input while acts of this Trump administration are consistently allowed to continue while cases play out for years. Even if the plaintiffs win in the end, most of the outcomes will be moot because of the harm the plaintiffs have suffered from the government's actions.
Upvote
81
(83
/
-2)
When a Justice of the Supreme Court uses language in a formal opinion that is so strong that it would probably get a post removed from a certain very "refined" subreddit for violating the rule against "polarizing rhetoric", you know that we no longer have a single, functional Court. We have two or maybe three factions that openly despise one another and the only thing that they seem to be able to agree on is that they REALLY don't want to confront the President. They're going to keep backing away from confrontation until Trump has his troops on the steps of the Supreme Court building and then it will be too late - for them and for us.
Upvote
69
(70
/
-1)
They probably were, but they are such scum that they don't even need to be.
If we're lucky and can take down this regime, its toadies in the Supreme Court have to come right after them.
I'll skip the execution scenarios so I don't get some yellow moderating box saying I'm bad. Imagine them yourself.
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
You're damn right.
At least we get "IAAL" out of it. Nicely done.
To repeat: Silver lining time. If you cross your eyes hard enough, all you'll see is the blurry shine.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Congress, of course. But I suppose you mean this in the cynical "I know who it is and they'll never do it" way. Which is entirely true of this Congress, for sure.
But with everything going on, including a looming economic shitstorm, fights against the latest anti-democracy machinations, and those of us organizing to undermine the regime, the day may soon come when Congress actually does its job.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
I really wish he had taken John Oliver's offer.
I'd like to switch over to the timeline where he did. Are you listening, multiverse?
Upvote
21
(24
/
-3)
On the flip side, that raises the distinct likelihood that when he kicks off while straining at a stool, they eat each other.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
At some point violence against them for their flippant treason against the constitution will not surprise and worse still, won't bother anyone worth listening to when it suceeds in ending their terms.
Upvote
12
(19
/
-7)
I can easily imagine a not-so-distant future in which one of the 'conservative" SCOTUS justices gets assassinated by some random dude in the street... and the general public displays about as much shock and dismay as when that health insurance CEO was gunned down on the sidewalk last year -- ie. the assassin may well end up hailed as a popular hero(ine).
Upvote
41
(47
/
-6)