SCOTUS

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is that specific to this case?

No. It is the number of words spoken the first 8 cases heard by each justice, so it will be a different collection of cases. The point being that Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke more in her first 8 cases than all of the male justices combined. And interestingly, Clarence Thomas hardly spoke at all.

[BigPiney]

Looks like the graph of words spoken, male vs female, in my home.

[Clark Addison]

Least surprising graph ever

[All-American]

No. It is the number of words spoken the first 8 cases heard by each justice, so it will be a different collection of cases. The point being that Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke more in her first 8 cases than all of the male justices combined. And interestingly, Clarence Thomas hardly spoke at all.

The real surprise is that Justice Thomas spoke even that many words. He went years without saying anything at all.

[YOhio]

Least surprising graph ever

Oh my gosh this must be hyperbole because I’ve seen many other graphs that exactly met my expectations. In this one I was somewhat surprised that Alito didn’t speak more being Italian and all.

[dabrockster]

Looks like the graph of words spoken, male vs female, in my home.

2-1 female to male in my home since my son went to college.. I did tell him he left me in the lurch. lol

I tend to find pockets of places in the home now. My desk room being the main location when things get interesting..

[falafel]

Oh my gosh this must be hyperbole because I’ve seen many other graphs that exactly met my expectations. In this one I was somewhat surprised that Alito didn’t speak more being Italian and all.

You should see the graph demonstrating how often the justices gesticulate animatedly.

[dabrockster]

Is the SCOTUS becoming to influential? It seems While it is taking on fewer cases, it seems many of the cases are vitally important to whichever side in congress has control.

The citizens and commentators shouting from the sidelines that Congress must act, fix itself, and reclaim its intended role are not wrong. But they miss that the Court has made doing so nearly impossible. The practical result is a Congress caught between paralysis and policing, mostly incapable of translating collective judgment into law and, when it does manage to do so, vulnerable to having its most significant accomplishments—civil-rights enforcement, voting protections, campaign-finance reform, administrative authority—erased by judicial decree. The judiciary, long conceptualized as a check on legislative excess, is now defined by its own excess against legislative charge.

The Court’s usurpation runs deeper than the invalidation of statutes with a liberal cast, though there has been plenty of that. It is curbing a competing source of constitutional interpretation, kneecapping an institution that speaks with its own voice and channels public commitments into durable legal forms. In the name of protecting the balance of powers, the Court is radically refashioning that balance, claiming for itself the final and exclusive authority not only over which laws stand but over who gets to say what the Constitution means.

This capacity to translate democratic and constitutional aspirations matters not because legislative majorities are always right, but because certain national challenges cannot be deferred or ignored indefinitely, and because judicial supremacy cannot substitute for self-governance. When the Court claims exclusive authority over constitutional meaning while systematically weakening the federal institution most responsive to the people, it does not preserve the constitutional order. It ends it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ss/ar-AA1U7nnC

[dabrockster]

Recent article on SCOTUS and Tariffs.

The wait for a tariff ruling could signal a Trump win — or a refund headache

Some analysts have said it’s a good omen for Trump if the Supreme Court keeps holding off on releasing its decision. It’s possible that there is significant debate among the justices, rather than a widespread view that lower courts were right to rule in favor of the importers challenging a wide swath of Trump’s tariffs.

“We agree that a long wait for the tariff decision is probably a better sign for the Trump administration than it is for importers, but it is no guarantee of the outcome,” said Kelsey Christensen, a trade attorney at law firm Clark Hill, in an email to MarketWatch on Wednesday. She added that court watchers are “not in long-wait territory yet,” given the court’s track record and the fact that it heard oral arguments in the case just two months ago.

“November to January is lightning speed for the court to hear and publish a major opinion,” Christensen said. “As the wait continues, we suspect that the justices are navigating and fine-tuning a majority opinion in addition to one or more dissents or concurrences.”

One betting market, Kalshi, recently was putting the likelihood of a Trump win in the tariff case at 35%, up from as low as 22% just before the Supreme Court issued its opinions for the day without releasing one that addressed the president’s import taxes. Polymarket was putting Trump’s chance for a victory at 33%, up from a low around 21% on Wednesday morning.

“The longer wait suggests the justices are debating the scope of the remedy,” Lau told MarketWatch. “For example, they may be trying to find a middle ground, perhaps invalidating the tariffs but limiting refunds to ‘prospective relief’ only, not to past tariffs collected. The longer the tariffs remain in place, the more catastrophic a retroactive refund becomes for the U.S. Treasury.”

Looks like the WH is looking for contingency plans to keep the Tariffs in place

Trump administration officials have indicated they’re ready to maintain their tariffs through other avenues, such as by invoking authorities granted in sections 301 and 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, as well as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...dache-e1d55605

[USUC]

Recent article on SCOTUS and Tariffs.




Looks like the WH is looking for contingency plans to keep the Tariffs in place



https://www.marketwatch.com/story/th...dache-e1d55605

The other avenue in place for tarrifs is congress. This admin is economically more illiterate than the Dems at this point.

[dabrockster]

The other avenue in place for tarrifs is congress. This admin is economically more illiterate than the Dems at this point.

Yes, congress, but I think the WH's long game is to use another Act and let that get sorted in the courts again, all the while he continues to collect and hopes in the end SCOTUS knows not to allow refunds as that would place our economy in complete chaos as well as the global markets.

[LVAllen]

Looks like the WH is looking for contingency plans to keep the Tariffs in place

Literally governing by the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. Rule number 1: "Once you have their money, you never give it back."

[dabrockster]

3-months and counting. And still no ruling on the Tariffs. Would love to be a fly on the wall in these discussions..

When the Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing over President Donald Trump’s tariffs, a similarly rapid resolution seemed possible.

After all, Trump’s lawyers told the court that speed was of the essence on an issue central to the Republican president’s economic agenda. They pointed to a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning that the “longer a final ruling is delayed, the greater the risk of economic disruption.”

But nearly three months have elapsed since arguments in the closely watched case, and the court isn’t scheduled to meet in public for more than three weeks.

No one knows for sure what’s going on among the nine justices, several of whom expressed skepticism about the tariffs’ legality at arguments in November. But the timeline for deciding the case now looks more or less typical and could reflect the normal back-and-forth that occurs not just in the biggest cases but in almost all the disputes the justices hear.

Several Supreme Court practitioners and law professors scoffed at the idea the justices are dragging their feet on tariffs, putting off a potentially uncomfortable ruling against Trump.

“People suspect this kind of thing from time to time, but I am not aware of instances in which we have more than speculation,” said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

The timeframe alone also doesn’t point to one outcome or the other.

One possible explanation, said Carter Phillips, a lawyer with 91 arguments before the high court, “is that the court is more evenly divided than appeared to be the case at oral argument and the fifth vote is wavering.”

Even if the majority opinion has been drafted and more or less agreed to by five or more members of the court, a separate opinion, probably in dissent, could slow things down, Phillips said.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tar...bab1af04a960df

[BlueK]

3-months and counting. And still no ruling on the Tariffs. Would love to be a fly on the wall in these discussions..





https://apnews.com/article/trump-tar...bab1af04a960df

Ridiculous. The Constitution couldn't be more clear about who has the authority to institute new taxes, and it is not the president.

[dabrockster]

Chief Justice Roberts laid down the law after all the recent leaks taking place..

In November of 2024, two weeks after voters returned President Donald Trump to office, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. summoned employees of the U.S. Supreme Court for an unusual announcement. Facing them in a grand conference room beneath ornate chandeliers, he requested they each sign a nondisclosure agreement promising to keep the court’s inner workings secret.

The chief justice acted after a series of unusual leaks of internal court documents, most notably of the decision overturning the right to abortion, and news reports about ethical lapses by the justices. Trust in the institution was languishing at a historic low. Debate was intensifying over whether the black box institution should be more transparent.

Instead, the chief justice tightened the court’s hold on information.Its employees have long been expected to stay silent about what they witness behind the scenes. But starting that autumn, in a move that has not been previously reported, the chief justice converted what was once a norm into a formal contract, according to five people familiar with the shift.

Over the years, journalists and authors have sought to penetrate the court, and the justices have tried varying methods to guard its secrets. Some generations of clerks, but not others, said they were asked tosign a different kind of confidentiality pledge.

“Many of the court’s decisions are being made out of the public eye in a way that makes it difficult to assess or criticize them, or to understand what actually motivated the justices,” he said. “The lack of transparency makes it difficult for the broader public to know how to respond.”

He said it also allows the court to conceal weaknesses in its processes, including the justices’ reliance on clerks for legal reasoning and writing.

“Many of the court’s decisions are being made out of the public eye in a way that makes it difficult to assess or criticize them, or to understand what actually motivated the justices,” he said. “The lack of transparency makes it difficult for the broader public to know how to respond.”

He said it also allows the court to conceal weaknesses in its processes, including the justices’ reliance on clerks for legal reasoning and writing.

“If the public were aware of how much of the deliberations affecting millions of people are made by 27-year-olds after happy hour, they’d be shocked,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/02/u...smid=url-share