The court currently has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, but both Barrett and Roberts have at times broken ranks and voted with the court's liberal wing in rulings that have infuriated the MAGA base.
The high court handed the U.S. president a significant setback when it ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must abide by a lower court order to unfreeze $2 billion in foreign aid.
The aid was blocked after Trump signed an executive action his first day in office ordering the funding freeze while his administration scoured U.S. spending for what Trump and his allies characterize as "waste, fraud and abuse."
A lower court judge subsequently ordered the administration to unblock the aid in response to a lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations in connection to the Trump administration's freezing of foreign assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
In a 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, Barrett and Roberts joined Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and left in place the ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.
Mike Cernovich, a longtime conservative activist and Trump supporter, amplified a video of Barrett and Trump interacting during his address to a joint session of Congress.
"She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes," Cernovich wrote. "Another DEI hire. It always ends badly."
Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Gorsuch and the former chief nominations counsel for Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, didn't name Barrett directly but echoed Cernovich's criticisms of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which Trump has dismantled across the federal government.
He wrote on X: "President Trump will pick even more bold and fearless judges in his second term. Extreme vetting. No DEI. No missteps."
You know what would be awesome... if Trump threw a temper tantrum and packed the Supreme Court.
At this point it'd just shred the last remnants of legitimacy that Roberts is desperately trying to cling to.
It'd also suck, of course, but it's going to suck regardless.
I wouldn’t put it past him. Other presidents stuck by norms instead of flexing/reaching for power outside of the strict reading of their position. Trump 2.0 gives two shits; if the SCOTUS rebuffs him? WTF wouldn’t he delegitimize them by forcing Congress to accept his stooges as he packs the court. Where’s that hair dye guy? Or that hack judge from Florida? Or any of his lawyers the last 10 years.
By hack judge from Florida I assume you mean Aileen Cannon the person voted by me to be most deserving of being struck by lighting two years running.
I'm sure he'd love to get her on the court and I'd fucking hate it.
the monkeys paw curls and your new justices are MTG, Matt Gaetz and the trump children.
This is one thing the Democrats actually have the power to block. They can't filibuster court appointments but they can filibuster attempts to expand the court and attempts to impeach a court justice. That means unless one of them dies, Trump can't touch the court.
Until the Republicans change the filibuster rule 5 minutes later.
TBH they could. They could change that rule right now, they've got 52 without a caucus. They've displayed the party unity in the past needed to do some pretty horrible stuff if they wanted to.
I don't think SCOTUS would dilute their own power by seating more judges if there wasn't a Congressional Act to legally change the size of the court, which is set by federal law.
Congress is also supposed to control the purse strings, and yet...
These motherfuckers would create their own Supreme Court, and just go with whatever they say. Who's going to stop them?
I wasn't saying our current Congress will do the right thing here. If they redefine the SCOTUS thru federal legislation then they're legally in the right even while they're morally bankrupt. I just don't think the 9 justices will allow acknowledge reducing their own power on the bench if they are not legally bound to do so by Congress. Not when they seem to be ok with expanding their power on the bench (president is immune to prosecution, but only if we say so).
You mean the Congress that is proposing putting Trump in the $100 bill?
I didnt say I think Congress wouldn't do it. The SCOTUS would have no choice if Congress does it properly, albeit for the wrong reason. But we've already seen SCOTUS rule against Trump this term. So I don't think they'd go along with weakening the strength of their individual vote on the bench without Congress doing it properly.