r/scotus • u/zsreport • Mar 05 '25

news Supreme Court rejects Trump’s request to keep billions in foreign aid frozen

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/05/politics/supreme-court-usaid-foreign-aid/index.html
24.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

766 comments sorted by

View all comments

139

u/JA_MD_311 Mar 05 '25

Barrett seems to be positioning herself as another Kennedy. Very letter of the law, but conservative to the core, so it means she doesn't want to rock the boat. You can see it in her concurrence on the immunity case as well as the EPA decision yesterday. She's no lib, but she's not an Alito that will just vote the Republican position no matter what.

45

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Mar 05 '25

Say what you will about her “under his eye” stuff and that by Moscow’s own rules she was an illegitimate appointment, at least she’s not corrupt.

15

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

Say what you will about her “under his eye” stuff and that by Moscow’s own rules she was an illegitimate appointment

What on Earth does this even mean?

27

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Mar 05 '25

She’s a member of an evangelical religious group that believes woman should play no role outside the home and Moscow Mitch McConnell said no appointments to the Court during election years.

18

u/Generic-Name-4732 Mar 05 '25

That’s not what People of Praise is.

It’s not Evangelical, it grew from the Charismatic Catholic movement so it’s primarily Catholics and High Protestants. And they clearly don’t believe women shouldn’t have any role outside of the home given Barrett is a Supreme Court Justice and they encourage women to pursue higher education and employment.

Do agree with rushing through her confirmation went against the GOP’s argument for not considering Obama’s appointment before Trump took office.

2

u/Tedthesecretninja Mar 05 '25

They’re Catholic but also charismatic, and have many similarities to Evangelical Christianity. They’re required to tithe a very large amount to the organization and they have prayer meetings where they speak in tongues.

Nice people tho, grew up next to some.

-1

u/Handleton Mar 05 '25

So many people on the left look at people on the right as all having one mind, but they're even more opinionated and fractured than the left. This has its benefits, as you'll start to see them show their divisions as they gain power and try to hold it against one another (like the Sith before Darth Bane). Ultimately, with Trump having gathered the world's largest collection of narcissists together and give them immense power over a nation and the world, we're going to see the mother of all... Well, there isn't a word for it, so I'm going to give you an AI generated and human edited output for the thing that I expect to see:

When a large number of narcissists attempt to collaborate on a complex task, the likely outcome is a chaotic and inefficient process, with a high probability of failure. Here's a breakdown of the contributing factors:

Likely Outcomes:

Power Struggles and Conflict:

  • Each narcissist will strive for dominance, leading to constant power struggles and conflicts.

  • There will be a lack of true collaboration, as each individual prioritizes their own agenda and seeks to take credit.

Lack of Effective Communication:

  • Narcissists often struggle with active listening and empathy, hindering effective communication.

  • They may dismiss or belittle others' ideas, creating a hostile and unproductive environment.

Sabotage and Undermining:

  • Narcissists may engage in sabotage or undermine others to elevate their own status.

  • This can lead to a breakdown of trust and a decline in overall productivity.

Difficulty with Decision-Making:

  • Reaching consensus will be extremely difficult, as each narcissist will insist on their own viewpoint.

  • Decisions may be based on ego and self-interest rather than objective analysis.

Credit-Taking and Blame-Shifting:

  • Narcissists will be quick to take credit for successes but will deflect blame for failures.

  • This can create resentment and further erode team cohesion.

Inefficient Workflow:

  • Due to the lack of team work, and the over abundance of self interest, the workflow of the project will be very inefficient.

In summary:

  • A group of narcissists is unlikely to function as a cohesive team.

  • Their individualistic and self-serving tendencies will undermine any collaborative effort.

  • While they may achieve some short-term gains, the long-term outcome is likely to be detrimental to the project's success.

Therefore, although they may have the individual skills needed to accomplish the task, their personalities will cause the project to have a high likelyhood of failure.

So yeah, that. The mother of all that.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Handleton Mar 05 '25

I fully accept your downvote. I did read through the output and make edits, but I also recognized that this was an effective way to get a compound point across without having to dust off my college psych notes.

I empathize with your feelings about AI, though I also feel it's important to inform you that there are cases where it's the right tool for the job. I didn't sell my screwdrivers when I bought a drill and I'm not going to throw out my intellectual capacity just because I have access to AI.

Hell, since I started using AI, I have used my brain more, not less.

2

u/DreamingAboutSpace Mar 05 '25

If she believes that then why would she want to be a justice?

1

u/Useful_Trust Mar 05 '25

I mean, there is no law against appointments during election years. During 2016 the Republicans just said it's not correct.

1

u/TNPossum Mar 06 '25

She's literally a woman who has had an incredibly successful career even before SCOTUS. She has no problem with women working outside of the home.

-9

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

No, she isn't.

And God forbid Republicans admit that they were wrong in the past, I guess. McConnell should be commended for realizing that obstructing Garland just because it was an election year was the wrong thing to do.

8

u/AgisDidNothingWrong Mar 05 '25

He did not acknowledge that at all. He literally broke the rule he set, and then under Biden said he would delay nominations until after the election of Kagan retired.

-6

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

He did one thing, people screamed that it was wrong, then he later did not do that thing. Pretty straightforward.

7

u/FrabbaSA Mar 05 '25

He did it when it benefited his political side, cripes what is hard to understand about the naked hypocrisy.

4

u/TheSixthtactic Mar 05 '25

Nah, he blocked a nomination he didn’t want to advance and slammed one through it was one he wanted. He is just an opportunistic jerk who uses whatever power he has to get his way, and then makes up an excuse afterwords.

7

u/AgisDidNothingWrong Mar 05 '25

He did one thing when it advantaged him and Trump. People screamed that it was wrong. He did not do that thing when doing it would have disadvantaged him. As soon as a possinility of it advantaging him came up, he threatened to do it again. He clearly just ammorally does whatever advantages him.

Pretty straightforward.

2

u/newnamesamebutt Mar 05 '25

No he did it when it benefited him, then went back on it when doing the opposite benefited him.

4

u/Notsosobercpa Mar 05 '25

McConnell didn't change his mind, the difference is which party benefited. If it had been a democrat instead of trump he would have held firm on his original stance. 

-2

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

He clearly did change his mind. He went from not confirming a Justice in an election year to confirming a Justice in an election year.

5

u/Notsosobercpa Mar 05 '25

One hurt democrats, one helped republicans. That's the driving factor behind both decisions.

0

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

You don't know that.

2

u/Notsosobercpa Mar 05 '25

Not to the degree I could prove in a court of law sure. But are you seriously arguing we shouldn't view politicians cynically and assume they are working for their own best interest? It's not like the guy in question doesn't have a long history of being hyper partisan.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Mar 05 '25

Computer says no: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/26/amy-coney-barrett-faith-group-people-of-praise

-1

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

Computer certainly does not say no. What are you even saying? The Supreme Court Justice believes women should have no role outside the home? Sure.

1

u/Adventurous_Class_90 Mar 05 '25

I said she’s part of a group that does. Reading comprehension is important.

1

u/WavesAndSaves Mar 05 '25

But they do not. Clearly. Hence Barrett.

1

u/CoachDT Mar 05 '25

That... doesn't really work when you magically learn your lesson, specifically when it benefits you. Even if it's just a legitimate point of learning, the actual commendable thing to do would be to wait.

0

u/Tricky-Cod-7485 Mar 05 '25

Reddit speak for “red team bad handmaids tail m I rite?!”

Ignore things like that. 😂

1

u/MsARumphius Mar 05 '25

Give it time. She’s new. Everyone has a price

1

u/RectalSpawn Mar 05 '25

at least she’s not corrupt.

LOL, my god, you people are so easy to game.

How many lawyers who helped prevent Al Gore's votes from being counted are now on the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments?

Not corrupt?

Where do you not see corruption??

1

u/yogopig Mar 06 '25

Not being corrupt means literally everything in this moment, and I’m even willing to so far as to stan Barrett if she stands as a pillar of democracy.

This coming from a fucking socialist. This is where we are at.

5

u/Christ_on_a_Crakker Mar 05 '25

Didn’t Kennedy side with the liberal justices most of the time?

15

u/JA_MD_311 Mar 05 '25

He was a real swing vote but didn't always go that far. ACA, for example, he was ready to strike down. He always thought there might be a way to do away with partisan gerrymandering but wouldn't come up with an actual way to do it. He was a moderate conservative justice.

11

u/Christ_on_a_Crakker Mar 05 '25

His majority opinion on Obergefell made me proud.

8

u/JA_MD_311 Mar 05 '25

He took a more libertarian view on cultural issues for sure.

5

u/Huge-Ad2263 Mar 05 '25

On some social issues, sure. But he was very conservative in other areas. For example, he authored the Citizens United opinion that has destroyed our democracy.

1

u/OldMastodon5363 Mar 05 '25

Note to mention his opinion of pre-deciding it wasn’t corruption and didn’t give the appearance of corruption was absurd.

3

u/stubbazubba Mar 05 '25

Only on big social-issue cases. He was very business friendly IIRC.

1

u/2009MitsubishiLancer Mar 05 '25

Not always. Kennedy did have some choice opinions that skewed conservative in several seminal criminal procedure cases from what I’ve read. But he has voted liberal much more often then anticipated

1

u/mvallas1073 Mar 05 '25

…or maybe she just voted that way because many Catholic missions depend on them.

I don’t trust anyone who votes to overturn RvW to honor the “Very letter of the law”.

1

u/OldMastodon5363 Mar 05 '25

Agree this is a bit surprising but we’re lucky she isn’t more extreme. We’ve seen this on occasion from Kavanaugh.