Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, December 07, 2025

A case being argued on Monday, opens new tab involves one of the precedents now in the crosshairs before the court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has moved American law dramatically rightward in recent years ...

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The GOP-majority Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Trump's executive order banning birthright citizenship, one more step in the president's plot to take away citizenship for the US-born children of immigrants.

[image or embed]

-- Mother Jones (@motherjones.com) Dec 6, 2025 at 10:01 AM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"The precedent at issue on Monday was established in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The ruling held that Congress possesses the power to insulate certain federal agencies from full presidential control.

Rebecca Slaughter, who was a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, is challenging Trump's decision in March to fire her from the consumer protection agency. The administration has called the Humphrey's Executor decision "egregiously wrong," arguing that the Constitution grants the president sole control over the U.S. government's executive branch.

The justices are due on Tuesday to hear arguments in another case in which the Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent - a 2001 decision that restricted how much money political parties can spend on campaign advertising with input from candidates.

In a different election law case argued earlier in the court's current nine-month term, Louisiana Republicans opposing an electoral map that increased the number of Black-majority congressional districts asked the justices in October to overturn an election law precedent set in 1986."

;;

The Constitution is Dead! Long Live The King!!

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-07 02:55 PM | Reply

From what I've been hearing, the GOP Justices are leaning towards ditching the precedent.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-08 01:58 PM | Reply

"Take all the robes of all the good judges that have ever lived on the face of the earth, and they would not be large enough to cover the iniquity of one corrupt judge."
Henry Ward Beecher

#3 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-12-08 03:42 PM | Reply

One Rotten apple spoils the Whole Barrel...

#4 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-12-08 05:15 PM | Reply

Every decade, one could look at the SCOTUS, and guess which way the court would rule.

Not based on the Constitution or the Law. Simply based on their leanings.

SCOTUS shouldn't be like that in any decade.

When the court rules 9-0, that's great.

But, when the court rules one way because the majority is Dem appointed and then rules the other way because the majority is now Rep appointed leaning, stop bitching.

The court shouldn't but it does. If the two pathetic parties don't like it, rewrite the laws. That's how you fix SCOTUS decisions.

#5 | Posted by Petrous at 2025-12-08 05:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

re: #5

Quit both-sidesing the issue. The GOP is the major violator here, they are destroying our country. They gave the President king's powers, FFS

#6 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-12-08 06:00 PM | Reply

The rwing Justices also gave us Citizens United, caving to Big Money in Politics motivating Politicians to vote for their Elitist Donor's Agenda's, not the People's Agenda.

These are structural changes, not 'but both sides do it' side issues.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2025-12-08 06:14 PM | Reply

In all the political fist-fighting in America, these three entities are sitting back and enjoying the show: Jaime Diamond and the banks, the oligarchs, and the unelected politburo with lifetime tenures, easy work schedules, and 24/7 security AKA SCOTUS.

#8 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-12-08 06:35 PM | Reply

#6, should Clinton be held criminally responsible for the bombing of the Chinese Embassy?

That immunity SCOTUS gave was already a known fact.

The courts just had to say that if any acts were not a Presidential Act...like Lewinsky.

Dred Scott was a 7-2 decision. Was the law and the Constitution correctly understood?

Prior decisions are not as absolute and overturning them should be done when their precedence is wrong.

Congress could, if they wanted, fix SCOTUS decisions any time they want. They choose not to- both parties.

If Congress thinks the courts are violating their position,impeach and remove the judges.

They don't or the won't?

#9 | Posted by Petrous at 2025-12-08 06:48 PM | Reply

@#9 ... Prior decisions are not as absolute and overturning them should be done when their precedence is wrong. ...

Overturning prior decisions is a significant thing to do.

The evidence that the precedence of those prior decisions is wrong should be equally significant.

And not going to some bizarre medieval law as precedence.

Past and Precedence: Abortion Law in the Middle Ages and Its Use to Overturn Roe v. Wade (Medieval Submission) (2022)
medium.com

But when the right-wing of the current SCOTUS is in a corner, they seem to grasp at straws.



#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-12-08 07:14 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort