129 Comments
User's avatar
Lance Khrome's avatar

Justice Coney Barrett is getting the full-on, in-the-barrel MAGA treatment for even minimally going against Lord Jesus tRump, and one wonders if her fellow Court members will join CJ Roberts in responding to these vicious attacks that could put the entire Court in physical jeopardy...well, except for you-know-who.

Roberts surely to god must realize that he's got a tiger by the tail, giving tRump total immunity for his actions both past and future, and has to understand that the upshot of a runaway, rogue presidency is the abolishment of Art. III constraints on tRump's traducing of constitutional guidelines, and indeed what we once quaintly referred to as "the rule of law".

If the Chief Justice has any at all institutional regards for the federal courts - and SCOTUS itself - he must form and join a Court majority that can rise definitively to the unprecedented challenges hurled at the courts by the tRump mob, and slap these brigands and privateers down at the first opportunity presented. Failing that, they will have failed the Constitution and we the people. it's that simple.

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

We will have to see where Robert’s true loyalties lie: with the constitution or with trump and the Federalists.

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

While the Chief Justice may be having a brief flash of Stare Decisis nostalgia...we should not assume the corrupt MAGA Justices on the Robert's Court will hold the line against Tr*mp/F'Elon's rising fascism and the escalating attacks on all our freedoms.

If you've not read this incredible piece about The Rule-of-Law vs. the Rule-by-Fiat by Michael Podhorzer, it is well worth the time, as it makes crystal clear what will actually keep the idea of a government of, by and for the people alive in our country.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-154092448

Expand full comment
Susan B's avatar

excellent article thanks!

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

Wasn't it? Granted, not what I would call a 'pick me up,' but important nonetheless.

As a resistance volunteer/organizer since March of 2017, and now an active member of the opposition, I found these two reads extremely worthwhile (and inspiring) in this existentially, dangerous moment:

Tr*mp can be stopped:

https://www.readthedetox.com/p/trump-can-be-stopped

and

Don’t underestimate incremental change:

https://www.inkl.com/news/the-threat-of-trump-is-vast-but-don-t-underestimate-incremental-change

Expand full comment
Susan B's avatar

I hope Thedetox is right!

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

"Hope is not the condition or cause of action. Hope is the consequence of action."

As I wrote previously, Neil Abrams' article provides important insights, but doesn't in any way change the reality that we must, each of us, in our own ways stand up and fight back. And that we must do it now, while nonviolent protest is still an option for winning change.

https://thetonymichaels.substack.com/p/the-protest-blueprint-how-35-can

Yad Vashem, and all memorials to the Holocaust and war crimes of the Nazis, admonishes us to "Never Forget." But I think, we would be better off today if we were admonished to "Learn" when in the slow rise of fascism, citizens could've come together to stop a weak, minority from taking over the levers of power before the cost was injury, death, and destruction.

Expand full comment
John.W's avatar

Thx for the link, I'm on it.

Expand full comment
David P. Burkart's avatar

Why on earth did he help draft the immunity ruling if he cares about the constitution? The court seems to have invented that idea, perhaps to help Donald avoid jail time?

Expand full comment
D Epp's avatar

Gee, I wonder why MAGA is focusing on Coney Barret and not the men on the court who agreed with her?

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

Because, like their great leader, they are misogynistic MF's

Expand full comment
Bill Williamson's avatar

BINGO‼️

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

People like Robert’s have underestimated the lengths trump will go. They keep trying to see him as normal when he’s anything but. He’s a dangerous combination of greedy, power hungry, short sighted and stupid. In the meantime I’m playing a lot of online backgammon and reading escapist novels…

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

I'm binge watching trash series

But yes, I agree that Roberts underestimated him and I think there is a little bit of a course correction here. It was a huge mistake on the drumph's part (of course he cannot help himself) to pat Roberts on the shoulder and thank him…in public! What a moron. He is so wrapped up in the notion of his own greatness that he has no clue about the reality of what is happening around him.

And Barrett's expression…priceless! I was thrilled. He is digging his own grave

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

Trump never knows how to read the room. And let me know which trash options help keep your,mind off the orange jerk.

Expand full comment
Cats🐈‍⬛'s avatar

Playing online puzzles, binge-watching rom-coms, Bosch, walking on the treadmill, reading mystery books after books…anything for a distraction from voldemort and all his lackeys.

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

Mysteries are my crack!

Expand full comment
Bill Williamson's avatar

You left out narcissistic and psychopathic.

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

Yes I did. Good point.

Expand full comment
John.W's avatar

Because she voted with the Liberals in the recent instance.

Expand full comment
Nilla's avatar

Roberts did, too.

Expand full comment
Maria K.'s avatar

I've been saying this too. First, Roberts handed Trump the immunity on a silver platter and NOW he finally goes looking for his balls? Seriously?

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

Sadly, for all their deliberating, the Court really f*cked up.

But like everyone else that voted for the PINO, they didn't think he REALLY was going to do what he actually is doing.

Harris warned us…

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

Agree...while the Chief Justice may be having a brief flash of Stare Decisis nostalgia...we should not assume the corrupt MAGA Justices on the Robert's Court will hold the line against Tr*mp/F'Elon's rising fascism and the escalating attacks on all our freedoms.

If you've not read this incredible piece about The Rule-of-Law vs. the Rule-by-Fiat by Michael Podhorzer, it is well worth the time, as it makes crystal clear what will actually keep the idea of a government of, by and for the people alive in our country.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-154092448

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

I read it and unless you posted the wrong column, what does it make "crystal clear" other than how the last election was lost?

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

BTW, I don’t ever capitalize trump’s name because he hasn’t earned that honor, and he uses so many unnecessary capitals that as an English major I feel a responsibility to eve

Expand full comment
Bambi Vargo's avatar

I was calling him "Dumpster" when I referred to him in my comments in the online Jesuit magazine "America." Got a personal message that I need to stop that and be kinder. Since then they have been reviewing my comments before publishing. But someone got away with referring to him as "orange convict." Cannot argue with that since it is very factual.

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

Even things out.

Expand full comment
Susan Linehan's avatar

I started the tRump in honor of his backside, but have moved on to trumP in honor of his obeisance to Putin.

Expand full comment
Patricia's avatar

I do the same and I NEVER WILL CALL HIM PRESIDENT ‼️

Expand full comment
DW's avatar

I like to call him the drumph (his original family name 😆) or FFOTUS (first felon of the United States)

Or the orange blob… So many to choose from

Expand full comment
mary's avatar

He's dRUMPy to me

Expand full comment
Liz's avatar

I refuse to capitalize too but usually I refer to him as VP Donna. And musk as President Ellen.

Expand full comment
Heather.B's avatar

So Trump “Mr Law and Order” actually thinks any judge that rules against him (or his administration) should be removed? What the f*ck?!

We are in a constitutional crisis.

Impeach and remove Trump from office!

So many unconstitutional acts... How many signs of democratic collapse do we need?

We must every day remind our senators representative that it’s time to impeach Trump. We must not let down the pressure. We must revolt, resist protest.

I will be wearing this "Impeach the MF" shirt everyday 👇

https://libtees-2.creator-spring.com/listing/immf

The time to fight back is now!

Expand full comment
Charles Bastille's avatar

The way to impeach him is through congress. Red state constituents are already letting their displeasure known in town halls to the point where Mike Johnson has recommended halting them. And these folks are not yet feeling the full affects of these policies.

If the Dems can't capitalize on this new found anger, we need to primary every single one of them out of office.

Expand full comment
pamela smallwood's avatar

Let’s get those Dems in April 1 special elections in there! Send them money TODAY!! Get us to a winnable number before we start knocking out Dems. Can’t afford to do that!

Expand full comment
Charles Bastille's avatar

Agreed there.

Expand full comment
Maria Muto-Porter's avatar

Starting with the ones who just voted with the republicans to let musk and trump continue raping our government.

Expand full comment
Lori LeClaire's avatar

If only they’d drag him out in handcuffs.

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

Personally, I think the Chief Justice is simply having a brief flash of Stare Decisis nostalgia (he's always had an eye on his legacy as the 'adult in the room')...but we should not assume the corrupt MAGA Justices on the Robert's Court will hold the line against Tr*mp/F'Elon's rising fascism given their Federalists roots and their enabling escalating attacks on our democracy and freedoms at so, so many junctures (i.e., when people show you who they are, believe them).

If you've not read this incredible piece about The Rule-of-Law vs. the Rule-by-Fiat by Michael Podhorzer, it is well worth the time, as it makes crystal clear what will actually keep the idea of a government of, by and for the people alive in our country.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-154092448

Expand full comment
Richard Waddell's avatar

Following 'the rues' as has mostly been the norm in our country, works however slowly that may be. Gaming the system with gerrymandering needs to be reined in, especially when abuse and distortion of its use is exposed...but is it 'legal' at all?

All this slash-and-burn is from a group of people trying to work at the speed of digital devices. Laws are not digital in nature, and these attempts to hurry-hurry-hurry leads to the mounds of painful waste generated by all the illegal haste.

Expand full comment
Public Servant's avatar

Judges are defending our democracy. They might be our last bulwarks against fascism. All Democrats must rise up to free Mahmoud Khalil: https://democracydefender2025.substack.com/p/mahmoud-khalil-freedom-peace-poem

Expand full comment
Ballard Graham's avatar

For someone who runs to our legal system when his own A** is on the line, and then to have the audacity to criticize that same legal system for holding his felon A** in check, when he is clearly violating our laws is truly horrendous!

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

Yet so on brand!

Expand full comment
Bill Riley's avatar

Trump doesn’t hate all judges. For example, he holds Aileen Cannon in very high regard, and believes it is probably illegal to criticize her.

Expand full comment
Phil Brennan's avatar

I believe the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals would Strongly Disagree with Trump's contention since they've SPANKED Aileen Cannon repeatedly!

Expand full comment
Sara's avatar

Can the Supreme Court reverse their decision on presidential immunity?

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

They can probably wind up narrowing its scope if presented with the right case(s). We’ll have to see.

Expand full comment
Lance Khrome's avatar

Certainly modify it, according to exigencies of lawlessness reaching the Court through either appeals or "emergency" rulings...but only those cases that attach criminal behavior directly to a tRump edict or act. His EOs to date have been challenged on constitutional grounds, and not as actual violations of criminal ( or civil)

statutes, AFAIK.

Expand full comment
Erin's avatar

If they're too cowardly to overturn it completely, they can at least define what makes an "official act" which they failed to do. Starting with defining an official act as "authorized by the Constitution or as authorized by statute by Congress". No "unitary executive" BS.

Expand full comment
D Epp's avatar

I thought there was a lawsuit to have the immunity decision revised initiated before Trump took office. Can anyone enlighten me, please?

Expand full comment
Douglas Brown's avatar

At some point, it seems as though as at least part of the DOJ needs to be moved over to the Judiciary to provide a real (not just a Constitutional) counterpoise to a potential Executive branch overreach.

In the meantime, referencing Jay Kuo's piece describing judge's power to designate who will carry out their directives, I propose creating a "shadow DOJ" of purged people from that department. They have the training, knowledge, skills, and experience to act as a counter to the travesties being run by Bondi, Homan, and Noem. It would need private funding, much like a think tank, but its people could be designated by a court judge for serving a warrant, escorting a summoned individual, or even arresting someone when Trump's people won't do it.

Our line in the sand needs teeth.

Expand full comment
Charles Bastille's avatar

" it’s at least a clear signal that Roberts believes Trump has taken things too far."

It seems so, I hope so, but I don't trust this guy at all. Will he care what history says about him? That's probably going to be the deciding factor. I get the sense that Justice Barrett may end up being a big regret on the part of conservatives, sort of a Sandra Day O'Connor 2.0. Not quite so much. She's still got that conservative blood running through her, but I have to hope that she doesn't take kindly to these attacks on her. She already seems tired of the pumpkin's antics.

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

Hope may spring eternal...but I think Chief Justice is just having a brief flash of Stare Decisis nostalgia.

We should not assume the corrupt MAGA Justices on the Robert's Court will hold the line against Tr*mp/F'Elon's rising fascism and the escalating attacks on all our freedoms.

If you've not read this incredible piece about The Rule-of-Law vs. the Rule-by-Fiat by Michael Podhorzer, it is well worth the time, as it makes crystal clear what will actually keep the idea of a government of, by and for the people alive in our country.

https://substack.com/home/post/p-154092448

Expand full comment
Teresa G's avatar

Why were the Venezuelans flown to El Salvador instead of Venezuela?

Isn’t the EO illegal because no war has been declared by congress?

I know the reason, but isn’t there a limit to the EOs that a president can sign?

He is ruling by EOs and bypassing the laws that congress has passed

Are EOs really the be all end all of the rule of law?

I in my 70th decade have never seen a president abuse the EOs as the orange blob is doing

That is not the purpose of EOs from my understanding.

Isn’t that illegal in itself?

Doesn’t congress itself have to change their own laws?

Where are Luigi’s ?

Expand full comment
VT_Maid's avatar

"Let's go, Luigi" is the new "Let's go, Brandon".

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

The Brandon thing was an eff you thing, that was misquoted by a stupid reporter who misheard the phrase at a racetrack where some Brandon guy was racing. It then entered the lexicon because the R's could be potty mouthed yet not use actual profanity.

The Luigi thing is a call for justice, in the form of vigilante-ism.

Expand full comment
VT_Maid's avatar

Correct.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

They were flown to El Salvador because trump sold them to a corrupt prison-slavery outfit.

Expand full comment
Paula B.'s avatar

Well what did SCOTUS expect when they gave him leave to break the law? These judges are the best we have to offer? I certainly hope not or we really are in trouble.

Expand full comment
phelpsmediation's avatar

Fair judges that apply the law without fear or favor keep our society stable and allows due process for all.

Expand full comment
Katharine Hill's avatar

Thank you once again, Jay.

Expand full comment
Kelly Eggers's avatar

Let’s hope🤞🏻♥️

Expand full comment
Michael Treanor's avatar

I am fearful that Justice Roberts has made a performative statement to provide plausible impartiality to a future ruling in favor of Trump. It seems outlandish for him to relinquish the relevance of the judicial branch in our government, but only the MAGA knows which evil lurks in the statements that will ultimately destroy our democracy.

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

It’s possible, but that’s not a level of subtlety that Trump will understand.

Expand full comment
Just Sayin''s avatar

I'm quite certain that the Orange Emperor misses the fact that by simply ignoring district court justices' rulings rather than appealing them with his newly conscripted DOJ lawyers, he is writing out the appellate and supreme courts of their role in government. They will certainly not appreciate being marginalized in such a dismissive way. To say "we don't care about the law and constitution OR your opinion of them strikes at the heart of the courts' relevance, other than as a line of "du-wop" girls behind the lead singer. I don't doubt that Roberts has a healthy ego and doesn't want to be made irrelevant in things constitional...

Expand full comment
Michael Treanor's avatar

That's a good point, but rather than sending Trump a subtle message could Roberts be setting the stage? When the right case comes along, his scolding, which had no consequence, will bolster his ruling in favor of Trump by stemming some of the outrage! His last big ruling earns him this level of suspicion, and he is smart enough to plan this.

Expand full comment
Su Pellitieri's avatar

Yep, one commentator I saw thinks this was a wink to say don't worry bro I got you on appeal.

Expand full comment
Tammy Swisher's avatar

I am so happy to see Don Bacon speaking out, and the fact that he is getting a lot of support here in NE for doing so. He seems to understand he represents "the blue dot" and is at least trying. Whether he would vote that way remains to be seen.

Expand full comment
Susan Cox's avatar

He voted for the CR. He is trying to have it both ways.

Expand full comment
Shaun Dakin's avatar

Scotus is bought and sold

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

At least two, maybe three of them, yes.

Expand full comment
Left-Of-Center's avatar

And the Federalist Society *may* be getting “buyer’s remorse” with Barrett…

Expand full comment
John.W's avatar

It's good to remember Roberts's role in the immunity ruling, as well as Barrett's. Let's not set these two up as saviors of civilization. To the contrary, they are among the scumbags who dug us all deeper into the trmp hole.

Expand full comment
Natalie Burdick's avatar

Exactly.

Expand full comment
Andrea_W's avatar

A friend asked, "How do we support all the judges doing the heavy lifting right now?" Any answers?

Expand full comment
Jay Kuo's avatar

Public opinion means a great deal at this moment. Share the Chief Justice’s words widely.

Expand full comment
Andrea_W's avatar

Thank you.

Expand full comment