Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

no_hypocrisy

(52,927 posts) Sat Sep 6, 2025, 07:28 AM 20 hrs ago

Were it not for the current make-up of SCOTUS, I would take great comfort

that the attorneys both representing Trump personally and representing Trump in the WH have proved themselves to be incompetent and should not be practicing law.

SCOTUS rubberstamps their arguments and canonizes bad law. Maybe that's why SCOTUS is relying so heavily on "Shadow Docket" decisions, to make them so flimsy that those decisions can't become real precedence.

1 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Were it not for the current make-up of SCOTUS, I would take great comfort (Original Post) no_hypocrisy 20 hrs ago OP

flimsy ... can't become real precedence bucolic_frolic 20 hrs ago #1

bucolic_frolic

(52,215 posts)

1. flimsy ... can't become real precedence

Reply to no_hypocrisy (Original post)

Sat Sep 6, 2025, 07:33 AM

20 hrs ago

would be some comfort. Are they more guidelines for subsequent rulings than precedent though? They seem to carry the day.

Reply to this discussion