House Democrats Vote To Preserve Supreme Court At Nine Justices Until Democrats Get Around To Changing It

House Democrats voted Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would permanently lock the Supreme Court at its current nine justices, apparently deciding that nine is perfectly acceptable as long as Democrats retain the option of making it 13 or more later.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), needed a two-thirds majority because, inconveniently, it would actually amend the Constitution. It received 212 votes to 206, falling well short of the required threshold, with all but one House Democrat voting against it.

The proposed amendment was remarkably straightforward. It would state, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

Biggs explained that the amendment was necessary because Democrats [aka progressives, aka leftists] have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court that occasionally issues rulings they do not like, leading some on the left to propose the time-honored solution of simply adding enough new justices until the correct answer appears.

“If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,” he said.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) urged Democrats to reject the amendment, arguing that permanently keeping the Court at nine justices would deprive Congress of the ability to change the number whenever circumstances, election results or disappointing judicial opinions make it necessary.

Comrade Clark

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” the leftist argued, adding that discussing the size of the Supreme Court could distract Congress from more pressing matters such as affordability, which apparently has nothing to do with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the Constitution itself does not specify how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. Congress has historically handled that little detail.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with six justices. Congress added a seventh in 1807, increased the number to nine in 1837, and then added a tenth during the Civil War in 1863.

Congress subsequently reduced the number to seven in 1866, partly to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. In 1869, the Judiciary Act restored the Court to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.

That consistency apparently became suspicious.

Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six additional justices to the Court after the existing justices repeatedly ruled against portions of his New Deal agenda. The proposal became known as the infamous court-packing plan, although it might more accurately be described as an early attempt to discover how many Supreme Court seats were required to produce the desired constitutional interpretation.

The plan generated enough backlash, including from members of Roosevelt's own party, that it was eventually abandoned.

Nearly a century later, however, court packing has returned, this time with considerably less embarrassment.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Nothing says respect for the constitutional underpinnings of the nation quite like ordering a few extra Supreme Court seats from the judicial bakery.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also indicated support for a 13-member Court, suggesting that the idea is gaining momentum among Democrats who apparently view the current nine justices as less of a constitutional institution and more of an insufficiently large focus group.

Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote for Biggs' amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who normally caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.

For now, therefore, the Supreme Court remains at nine justices.

Not because Democrats have suddenly concluded that nine is the ideal number.

Not because they have discovered some timeless constitutional principle requiring it.

And certainly not because they have decided that voters should not be able to change the Court's composition through the creative use of congressional arithmetic.

The Court remains at nine because, for the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to make it larger.

Should the political winds change, however, Americans can apparently expect the nation's highest court to undergo the same basic transformation as a congressional seating chart: If you don't like the outcome, simply add more chairs until you do.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

SCOTUS Gives Trump Ballroom Project a 5-4 Green Light, Roberts Apparently Not Invited to the Grand Opening

WASHINGTON, D.C. | The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to continue construction of the White House ballroom, delivering a 5-4 ruling that apparently means America’s highest court has decided that, yes, presidents are allowed to build things.

In an unsigned 5-4 order, the majority granted an emergency application from the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have stopped construction on the aboveground portion of the project. At this preliminary stage, the justices concluded that the preservation groups challenging the project had not established that they had standing to sue.

“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the high court wrote.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not declare Trump’s ballroom legal. It simply decided that the people suing over it had not yet demonstrated that they were legally entitled to stop it.

Four justices disagreed, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court’s liberal wing consisting of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and D.E.I. employee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Roberts argued that Congress never gave the president permission to undertake the project, an argument that apparently places the White House ballroom somewhere between an unauthorized federal building and an international incident.

“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote. “Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Roberts had previously issued an administrative stay on Aug. 21, temporarily blocking the district court’s injunction while the full Supreme Court considered the administration’s request.

Monday’s ruling, however, left Roberts on the losing side of a 5-4 decision, marking another occasion when the Chief Justice found himself standing with the court’s liberal justices while the conservative majority proceeded without him.

“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” Roberts argued with the liberals.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he added.

The administration, meanwhile, considered the ruling a rather substantial victory, particularly since crews are already well into the project and apparently have little interest in waiting around for the judicial system to finish debating whether they are allowed to hold a shovel.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.”

The administration has also argued that the White House needs additional security infrastructure capable of protecting the president and other officials from potential attacks.

Critics, naturally, remain unconvinced.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argued that Trump cannot simply demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and the appropriate reviews.

The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review,” presumably by doing the radical thing known as actually building the building while the lawyers are still arguing about it.

The administration says construction is already approximately 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week.

That schedule may explain why the legal battle has become something of a race between construction workers and the federal judiciary.

About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump initially announced the ballroom after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project financed primarily through private donations.

The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to make room for the project.

For now, Trump gets to keep building, as will future POTUSs.

And Chief Justice Roberts gets to keep writing dissents.

Somewhere, a ballroom contractor is probably hoping the next Supreme Court order arrives after the drywall goes up.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Trump Takes Aim at Birth Tourism, Moves to Tighten Birthright Citizenship

President Donald Trump is once again reminding everyone that immigration policy is not supposed to be a suggestion box.

On Thursday, Trump signed two executive orders targeting birth tourism and expanding the definition of who does not qualify for birthright citizenship.

The move comes after the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in June in Trump v. Barbara, which ruled that birthright citizenship is a right under the Constitution.

Trump was not exactly thrilled with the ruling.

“We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright. It was close, but a very, very unfortunate decision. So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair,” Trump said.

He also argued that the original purpose of birthright citizenship has little to do with the modern cottage industry that has developed around it.

“This was done for a different reason. This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves, and what’s happening now? People are building businesses around it,” he added.

The White House explained that the first executive order identifies, among other categories, certain children of aliens who are not entitled to birthright citizenship, consistent with historical exceptions recognized by the Supreme Court in Barbara.

The second order delegates presidential authority to the secretaries of State and Homeland Security and directs them to shut down the practice of birth tourism.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and a frequent source of nightmares for immigration activists, said the order ending birth tourism falls within the president’s authority under Section 215A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“This has been something that people have talked about not only for years but for decades,” Miller said.

Apparently, it was finally time to do something about it.

“The idea that people come here pretending to be a tourist, pretending to be a visitor, saying they want to go to Disneyland, they want to go visit a monument or go to a national park, but the real reason they’re here is to have a child, to make that child an automatic citizen, leave our country, and then have a U.S. citizen child,” he continued.

“It gives them access under this broken system to welfare benefits, ultimately to the voting booth, and all the other rights and privileges that belong solely to Americans. So that practice of birth tourism is, as of the signing of this order, hereby banned,” he added. “And what that means is that no one in the world is any more allowed to obtain a visa for this fraudulent purpose.”

Miller called the action one of Trump’s most important immigration moves.

“I would put this in the top three in terms of importance because it ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship sacred,” he said.

The other executive order takes aim at broader categories of children of aliens who would not qualify for birthright citizenship.

“That includes, for example, alien enemies of the United States, members of foreign terrorist organizations, and large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments,” Miller said.

“And so, with taking this action, it ensures that large numbers of people who wrongly would be getting birthright citizenship will no longer be eligible for those benefits,” he added.

Trump also signed a proclamation establishing a minimum import price program for polysilicon and polysilicon derivative imports, an effort aimed at protecting American producers. The administration said the move also imposes a 15 percent tariff on derivative products to encourage these industries to move their operations to the United States.

“This is a series of trade and tariff actions under Section 232, intended to ensure that domestic polysilicon manufacturing is properly supported and protected from overseas dumping and offshore threats,” White House staff secretary Will Scharf said.

Polysilicon may not exactly be the stuff of campaign rallies, but it is critical to producing the silicon wafers used in computer chips, including those powering the artificial intelligence boom.

“So the president’s policies have brought 50 percent of production into America, but we need the foundational products made here. Otherwise, you know, we’re making the products here, but we need the supply chain here,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said.

In other words, making the fancy stuff in America while importing the ingredients from overseas is apparently not quite the industrial renaissance anyone had in mind.

Trump’s latest actions put both immigration and domestic manufacturing back where his administration apparently believes they belong: at the center of the America First agenda.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Bombshell Memo Shows Biden Planned To Leave Trump With Even More Massive Immigration Crisis

In a shocking development that will stun only those who still believe the previous administration ever cared about borders or the word temporary, Sen. Eric Schmitt obtained a document showing the Biden White House planned protections for Guatemalans, Ecuadorians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans in a final desperate bid to hand President Trump an even bigger immigration clusterfrack.

The Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to President Trump's immigration policies ruling 6 to 3 that the administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants. Fox News Legal Editor Kerri Urbahn highlights the majority opinion.

A newly uncovered Biden White House memo from the administration's final days revealed plans that could have expanded Temporary Protected Status to more than 3 million illegal aliens while acknowledging that previous court challenges had blocked many of President Donald Trump's efforts to end the protections.

TPS is meant for foreign populations experiencing crises like political unrest or natural disasters and while Trump has tried to end the temporary provisions for Haitians, Nepalese, Salvadorans, and Sudanese people lawsuits from pro migrant advocates have halted most attempts.

"My investigation uncovered that the Lame Duck Biden White House tried to keep millions of illegal aliens in our country by abusing the 'Temporary' Protected Status program," Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) who acquired the memo told Fox News Digital on Friday. "After the American people voted for President Trump’s promise to end the TPS scam, the Biden administration tried to subvert the will of the American people. This was mass amnesty-by-decree. America is for Americans, and it is our home—it is not a permanent refugee camp," he said.

The memo argued that "granting TPS will potentially protect many vulnerable people from President-elect Trump's planned mass deportations... They argue that these protections are likely to hold in court, and they are prepared to litigate efforts to terminate or slow down the implementation of TPS for specified nations by the Trump Administration."

In other words the outgoing team decided the best parting gift for the nation that just rejected them was to load up the country with millions more people and then dare the new president to try cleaning it up through years of activist court battles.

"[P]rior federal litigation brought by advocates during the first Trump administration was successful in halting [its] efforts to terminate TPS, though that was due in large part to [its] failure to produce a factual record in support of termination, which is something that could be rectified," the memo went on. Schmitt said he obtained the memo from Archivist of the United States Edward Forst through his authority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

"Biden tried to turn TPS into a 3.1-million-person deportation shield, protect Tren de Aragua members, and trap President Trump in years of litigation," he said, adding the move directly betrayed the will of the people who ousted liberal Democrats from power the prior election."

The most disturbing part, Biden's ‘Senior Advisors’ recommended "he create 2.1 million NEW TPS designees in the last few weeks of his presidency, despite admitting TPS applications take 6 months," Schmitt added. "Luckily, that never happened and we have been deporting Ecuadorians and Guatemalans."

Schmitt noted that one week after the January 2025 memo which he said was erroneously dated 2024, Biden extended TPS protections for nearly 1 million noncitizens meaning its transmission still led to a concrete mass migration action. Because when the American people demand an end to the scam, if you're on the left, you simply ignore them and stamp another million temporary forever statuses just for good measure.

The memo reminded Biden he gave TPS protections to Afghans, Cameroonians ,Ethiopians, people from Burma, Lebanese, Ukrainians, and Venezuelan, nationals and repeatedly extended protections for Haitians. Apparently temporary means until the next Democrat is ready to extend it again.

"The previous Administration unsuccessfully attempted to terminate TPS designations for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal, and Honduras. Courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the Trump Administration's actions," it read. "Your administration took actions to resolve this litigation by either re-designating Haiti or rescinding the terminations."

The memo noted that Trump had said during the 2024 campaign he intended to revoke TPS protections for Haitians and predicted his incoming administration would likely seek to rescind additional TPS designations. How dare Trump try to enforce the temporary part of Temporary Protected Status.

A chart in the memo estimated potential new TPS eligibility for roughly 1.5 million Guatemalans 600,000 Ecuadorians 464,000 Nicaraguans 455,000 Venezuelans and smaller populations from Ukraine Sudan and Afghanistan figures Schmitt said totaled more than 3.1 million people. Just a modest little expansion of the permanent temporary refugee program.

The memo said Biden’s senior team had also received requests for varying types of new TPS related actions before Trump would take office from Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Richard "Dick" Durbin (D-IL), Mazie Hirono (D-HA), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Alex Padilla (D CA).

"In addition, some stakeholders are requesting that your Administration designate nationals from new countries, most notably Ecuador and Guatemala, for TPS," it stated. While the proposals outlined in the memo were never fully implemented the document offers a rare glimpse into the immigration options Biden advisers presented as Trump prepared to return to the White House promising mass deportations. 

In classic fashion the outgoing team nearly succeeded in turning America into an even larger permanent refugee camp and then dared anyone to notice that temporary somehow always means forever. a shocking development that will stun only those who still believe the previous administration ever cared about borders or the word temporary.

Sen. Eric Schmitt obtained a document showing the Biden White House planned protections for Guatemalans, Ecuadorians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans in a final desperate bid to hand President Trump an even bigger immigration mess.

The Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to President Trump's immigration policies ruling 6 to 3 that the administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haitian and Syrian migrants. A newly uncovered Biden White House memo from the administration's final days revealed plans that could have expanded Temporary Protected Status to more than 3 million noncitizens while acknowledging that previous court challenges had blocked many of President Donald Trump's efforts to end the protections.

TPS is meant for foreign populations experiencing crises like political unrest or natural disasters and while Trump has tried to end the temporary provisions for Haitians, Nepalese, Salvadorans, and Sudanese people lawsuits from pro migrant advocates have halted most attempts. Because nothing says temporary quite like inviting the entire third world to move in forever and then suing anyone who notices.

Corruption much?

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Supreme Court Just Ruled on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship for immigrant children, proving once again that nine black robes in Washington know better than the American people what the Constitution actually means.

The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, which means they are considered citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. The ruling means that Trump's executive order is rendered invalid and cannot be enforced, handing another glorious victory to the open-borders crowd and their judicial enablers, and Chuck 'Nostrils' Schumer may be coming for Gorsuch.

Trump issued the executive order on his first day back in office last year, seeking to limit birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to that order on April Fools Day, and was expected to issue a ruling before the end of its current term.

The order directed federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the country after late February 2025 if the mother was in the country illegally and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Supporters defended the order, arguing that it is a necessary correction in a longstanding misreading of the 14th Amendment. They contend that the provision was not intended to grant automatic citizenship to the children of parents who lack full allegiance to the United States. In a post on Truth Social, Trump argued that the country “cannot live with the shackles of Birthright Citizenship. It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable, and no other Country in the World, of consequence, does it!”

This decision is peak judicial activism dressed up as originalism. The Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to turn America into a global maternity ward for illegal aliens and temporary visitors. While the Supreme Court once again chooses international norms over common sense, everyday Americans are left footing the bill for endless chain migration, strained welfare systems, and eroded national sovereignty.
Trump was right: birthright citizenship as currently practiced is a magnet for abuse that no serious country tolerates. Time for Congress to fix what the courts refuse to or for us voters to fix Congress.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

AOC Drops History-Altering Bombshell: "Black Americans Created Democracy From Nothing," Podcast Host Enthusiastically Agrees Before Realizing He Still Has to Pay Taxes

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a lot of things, but she is definitely no Victor Davis Hanson when it comes to American history, or much else, for that matter.

In a revelation that has left ancient Greeks, Enlightenment philosophers, and every Founding Father collectively facepalming from beyond the grave, America's foremost revisionist historian and occasional bartender, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), dropped a bombshell on the country the other day.

She informed us all that it was black Americans who created democracy: "I think about the Civil Rights and voting rights movement, and how black Americans really created democracy in this country . . . black Americans created democracy. They built something from nothing."

I had no idea. I was under the naive impression that it was the ancient Greeks and our Founding Fathers who conjured such a thing, but clearly I was the last to know. Even the podcast host she was enlightening nodded along in vigorous agreement: “Yes, YES.” Where have I been all these years? Probably busy not rewriting history to own the libs.

There you have it, folks. The 1619 Project rides again like a participation trophy on steroids. History has been rewritten, you’ve been lied to your entire life, and James Madison was apparently mixed. Unless, of course, AOC hit her head falling out of a coconut tree and is simply, resoundingly, and spectacularly wrong.

Democracy literally comes from the ancient Greek word dēmokratia: “rule by the people,” from dēmos meaning “the people” or “citizen-body,” and kratos for “power” or “rule.” By the people, for the people. Sound familiar? It describes a system in which citizens hold the power to make decisions, either directly or through their elected representatives.

In 508-507 BC, the true “Father of Democracy,” Cleisthenes, a suspiciously non-diverse Greek aristocrat, shifted power away from hereditary elites and toward the demos. He reorganized citizens into tribes based on residence rather than bloodline, introduced equality under the law, and reformed governance through popular voting.

Long after his death, the historian Thucydides praised the system: “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy.”

Credit for the creation of democracy goes to white, ancient Greek aristocrats wearing bedsheets. My apologies, Congresswoman. Next you'll tell us Socrates invented the filibuster.

If AOC means American democracy specifically, she’s no less mistaken. American democracy wasn’t “built from nothing” by any single group or era. It was deliberately engineered as a constitutional republic with robust democratic features during the late 18th century by a bunch of powdered-wigged guys who definitely didn't look like they just invented hip-hop. Drawing on ancient Athens and Rome, English common law, and Enlightenment thinkers including John Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, our Founders designed a republic specifically intended to avoid the pitfalls of pure direct democracy. As Madison argued in Federalist No. 10, this often resulted in mob rule and instability—like, say, Twitter in 2021.

In its place, they built representative government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, all to protect individual liberty. The Miracle at Philadelphia wasn't exactly a community organizing session.

Just as it would be inaccurate to say women alone created American democracy, it is equally inaccurate to say black Americans did because it is simply not true. Unless Washington and the Founders were applying considerably more face powder than the portraits suggest. Spoiler: They weren't.

I was reminded of all this just last night at an Independent Women’s event, where extraordinary women gathered to celebrate and defend exactly this history instead of turning it into a corporate DEI seminar. That’s the spirit we need more of: women, Americans of all backgrounds, who know what this country is built on and aren’t afraid to say so. We should be teaching this, not erasing it like a bad tweet.

To be uncharacteristically charitable to AOC, one could argue that she means that black Americans, through the crucible of slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement, helped make the promise of democracy real rather than merely rhetorical. Indeed, black Americans’ contributions to expanding rights were immense and undeniable, but “expanding and perfecting democracy” is a very different claim from “creating it from nothing,” and conflating the two isn’t empowerment, it’s historical erasure with a side of coconut.

Meanwhile, that very democracy she claims was created by black Americans is being thwarted by her and her fellow Democrats in Washington, D.C., who treat the Constitution like an annoying Terms of Service agreement they keep clicking "Ignore." Barack Obama wants to strip away the voting rights of Republicans of all color, and they’ve promised that when they regain power, they will pack the Supreme Court, enable mass mail-in-ballots, throw away voter ID, and nuke the filibuster to add four more blue senate seats. Very "created democracy" behavior.These are not the actions of people who revere democratic institutions. They’re the actions of people who revere power—and really good campaign donors.

The danger of letting the Left rewrite history and promote fallacious ideas is not abstract. When young people and useful idiots are taught a distorted version of the past by a backward education system and p(regressive) leadership, they have no framework to defend what is true. That's the whole point. Gutting civics and history education was not an accident; it was a strategy, like replacing math with "equity."

Our Founders studied history with rigor, absorbed its lessons, and built something incredible and new: a durable, liberty-focused republic that has endured for nearly 250 years. Its genius lay not in perfection but in self-correction through elections, courts, and amendments, not reinvention via executive order and vibes.

Don’t fall for the lies: communism has failed everywhere it has been tried, Capitalism harnesses human self-interest to drive innovation, growth, and prosperity like no other, and our constitutional republic is a miraculous achievement, conceived by a very pale founding bunch and hardened over generations by Americans of different color and circumstance, bound under one creed.

That’s not an uncomfortable fact; that’s a beautiful one, and as we approach our 250th birthday, it is one worth defending clearly and without apology, or a trigger warning.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Justice Alito rips Jackson a new one over 'utterly irresponsible' solo dissent

Justice Alito and DEI appointee Jackson

Justice Samuel Alito just unloaded on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's latest solo dissent, and he didn't hold back on Biden's autopen D.E.I. appointee.

Alito's concurrence, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, said Jackson's rhetoric "lacks restraint." He torched claims that terminating temporary protected status for Haitian migrants was driven by racial bias against non-white immigrants. 

No, wait, this time it was even better: Alito ripped into Jackson's lone dissent in the high-stakes Louisiana redistricting fight on Monday, labeling her arguments "baseless and insulting" after the Court moved to fast-track its recent ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Writing in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, Alito directly slapped down Jackson, declaring that her "dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered."

"The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power," Alito wrote, adding that that was a "groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

This latest clash just underscores how isolated Jackson has become on the bench, mainly because she isn't the brightest woman, [whatever that is, I'm not a biologist] on the SCOTUS bench. She didn't just split from the conservative majority; she went rogue from her two liberal colleagues too, who refused to sign on to her rant. Jackson unloaded on the Court for supposed overreach, continuing her habit of solo dissents where the Biden pick blasts every big majority decision that happens to go the way of President Trump and the Republicans.

In Monday's unsigned order, the Court cleared the way for Louisiana officials to quickly redo their congressional map, a move expected to boost Republican representation in the state ahead of the midterms.

Alito pointed out that dragging out the 6-3 ruling from last month, which tightened up Section Two of the Voting Rights Act by calling out Louisiana's map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, served zero practical purpose. Jackson's excuses for delaying the landmark decision were "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting," he said.

"The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints,'" Alito wrote. "It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint."

Jackson had clutched her pearls, warning that the Court's action risked meddling in an active election and creating the "appearance of partiality," all while ignoring the voting and legal mess already happening in Louisiana.

Legal watchers noted the unusually sharp tone from Alito, figuring it showed some real internal tension boiling over. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley put it plainly: "Justice Alito had had enough." Professor Turley explained that Alito shredded Jackson's lame 32-day procedural objection, calling it a "trivial" nitpick that put form over substance, especially since nobody asked for reconsideration. It would have meant waiting around for no reason while the other parties had urgent need to get the map finalized.

He added that Alito was particularly fed up with Jackson's "unprincipled" smear against the Court. The whole thing stems from the standard 32-day procedural window before a judgment drops to lower courts. Alito made clear that rule is flexible and mainly exists for rehearing petitions, which weren't coming here anyway.

Now Louisiana is in full scramble mode to roll out the new map, with ballots already mailed and the primary on pause. 

This decision will ripple across the country as other states scramble to get their own maps in order for the upcoming elections.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee if you want to support me directly. Finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Jasmine Crockett says "Fk you" to SCOTUS over Texas redistricting decision

Crockett's rendition of "Thriller"

Fresh off getting redistricted out of her own House seat, Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D) is throwing a full-on toddler-tantrum, complete with profanity aimed straight at the Supreme Court, for daring to allow Texas keep its new congressional maps that could net Republicans up to five extra House seats in 2026. 

In a rambling YouTube video posted Sunday, Crockett unloaded on what she calls Republican efforts to "rig the system" through redistricting, all while conveniently ignoring her own party's aggressive counter-moves. After all, it isn't as if the Democrats have perfected this move--oh wait--they did.

"Obviously, Trump is still doing his bidding with these state Houses and state Senates and governor's mansions to try to rig the system," potty-mouth Crockett said. "Kudos to Indiana for saying f**k you. Kudos to California for saying we're going to fight back."

How edgy for her to drop the "F Bomb." It's the latest Democrat ploy.

But Crockett didn't stop there, praising a dissenting lower-court opinion before turning her fire on the nation's highest court: "Definitely kudos to the Trump justice who wrote the 160-page opinion denouncing what took place in Texas and f**k you to the Supreme Court for what they did as well as, you know, we'll see what happens in some other places."

Classic. The Supreme Court sided with Texas Republicans in December, allowing Gov. Greg Abbott's redrawn maps to stand for the midterms, a map expected to flip as many as five seats to the GOP column. And yes, those new lines effectively booted Crockett from her current district, which just so happened to coincide with her sudden announcement of a Senate bid days later.

Meanwhile, Democrats aren't exactly playing defense. California Gov. Gavin Newsom rammed through a ballot initiative in November creating five new Dem-leaning districts to offset Texas. And in December, Indiana's GOP-led Senate shot down a proposal for two additional Republican seats—handing Crockett her "kudos" moment.

But Crockett wasn't done. She used the rant to push her pet cause: "reforming" the Supreme Court, drawing on her time with the 2024 Court Reform Now Task Force—think term limits and packing the bench.

"I just feel like there are certain spots on the Supreme Court that were illegitimately gotten for sure," Crockett said. "So, I think if we're going to shore up our democracy, we have to first start by shoring up the checks and balances. And so, that starts with the Supreme Court."

Nothing says "shoring up democracy" like cursing out the justices and demanding to overhaul the court because it won't rubber-stamp your agenda. Stay classy, Rep. Crockett.

If you like Brain Flushings and would like to Buy Me a Coffee, or check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure. 

Tweet

Explosive Lunatic Busted Outside DC Cathedral with 200 Boom-Bombs and a Hate-Filled Manifesto Aimed at Catholics, Jews, SCOTUS, and ICE

Folks, if you're looking for the poster boy for why we need to keep an eye on the unhinged fringes, left, right, or whatever fever dream they're living in, meet Louis Geri, the 41-year-old Arizona-New Jersey transplant/plant who thought crashing a solemn Catholic mass with a tent full of homemade fireworks was a good idea. 

This genius got pinched Sunday outside the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle during their annual "Red Mass," you know, the one where Supreme Court justices show up to pray for wisdom before kicking off the new term. Because apparently, in Geri's twisted jasmine of his mind, blowing up holy ground and the folks who enforce our laws is the height of protest.

Picture this: Cops are clearing the area for the event, and there's Geri, hunkered down in his little encampment right on the church steps. When the officers politely ask him to make like biblical David and get the flock out of there, he drops this gem: "You might want to stay back and call the federales, I have explosives." 

But wait, it gets better, or worse, depending on your definition of "entertaining." 

As they try to escort him out, the scumwafer snarls, "Several of your people are gonna die from one of these." Then, in a move straight out of a B-movie script, he hands over a stack of papers titled "Written Negotiations for the Avoidance of Destruction of Property via Detonation of Explosives." Because nothing says "rational discourse" like threatening Armageddon over printer paper.

Peel back the layers on the guy's manifesto, and it's a doozy of deranged bigotry, per the police report. It "revealed his significant animosity towards the Catholic church, members of the Jewish faith, members of SCOTUS and ICE/ ICE facilities." 

Yes, this dimwit's hatred is dialed up to eleven for everyone from the robed wise men on the bench to the brave agents keeping our borders secure. And just to amp up the drama, Geri flicks his thumb over a butane lighter like he's about to cue the symphony of chaos, warning, 'You better have these people step away or there’s going to be deaths.' 

The cops, bless their tactical vests, play it smart. Geri wanders out of the tent for a bathroom break, and that's when they pounce. In his pocket is an apparent detonation device. And get this: "a vial with a white cap, which contained yellow liquid inside, with an M-device taped to the exterior," according to the records. 

The Bomb squad rolls in, unzips the tent, and jackpot: "a large cache of handmade destructive devices." We're talking over 200 of these bad boys recovered, fully functional pipe dreams of destruction, reeking of acetone, spiked with nitro methane, and mixed from mystery chems in non-original containers. There were Molotov cocktails as well along with threats on cops, threats to injure, unlawful entry and a boatload of explosive charges.

Even a leftist judge would give him at least a month in the slammer [or let him go completely, the way they've been behaving lately].

Geri's cooling his heels in the slammer now, no bond, no mercy, good riddance. In a sane world, this is what happens when you let grudges fester into felony fantasies. But hey, at least he gave the feds a heads-up before trying to turn a prayer service into a crime scene. 

Wake-up call for all of us: Evil doesn't need a party affiliation to light the fuse. It simply needs simple minds.

Stay vigilant, America.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

BREAKING: SCOTUS hands Trump yet another win and guess who blasts KBJ

The Supreme Court just handed President Trump another legal win as they struck down a San Francisco lower court's injunction that would stop the administration from cutting the federal work force. 

The order says the judge who put a stop to Trump cutting several federal agencies can now go ahead with the cuts and see how it plays out on its merits.

Some of the cuts will be: HUD, HHS, DoD, Department of Agriculture,  Department of Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security. These cuts will be staffing from these agencies and are designed to save taxpayer funding. 

The is part of the DOGE effort and Trump's campaign promise.

The ruling actually comes as a rebuke of Justice Jackson, but it doesn't come from a conservative justice, it comes from Justice Sotomayor. 

She writes:

"I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, AT 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force "consistent with applicable law." App. to Application for Stay 2a, and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried outconsistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in th first instance."

The ruling passed 8 -1 with Jackson the only one who didn't know what she was doing.

Not a doctor, and not much of a lawyer

Thus, SCOTUS came down with an opinion before they broke for their summer recess. They ruled that nation-wide injunctions with these nation-wide causes can no longer go to the level as before where, for example, a judge in San Francisco can change a policy for someone that's living in New York City. 

The fact that Jackson's colleague has to remind her of what the law really says, shows us that she really does not deserve to be a Justice. And she certainly is not a doctor.

Hey amazing readers! If you love the content you find here please consider supporting Brain Flushings. A quick coffee donation via Buy Me a Coffee fuels late-night writing sessions and fresh ideas. Every sip—er, dollar—helps me create more of the posts you enjoy. Join the crew, toss in a coffee, and let’s keep the good vibes brewing! 


Tweet

Feds to Ship MS-13 Thug Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Some "Third Country" Nobody’s Named Yet

So, the feds have a plan for "the Maryland man" Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the illegal alien and highly suspected MS-13 human trafficker who’s been cooling his heels in a Tennessee jail. 

They’re not sending him back to El Salvador, his home base, that’s too straightforward. Instead, they’re shipping him off to some mysterious “third country” that’s apparently willing to take him. Why? Because a 2019 court order says he can’t go back to El Salvador. Gotta love the legal gymnastics.

This guy, who Democrat politicians laughably call a “Maryland man,” depicting him as a dad and a regular guy, despite his illegal status, already got the boot to El Salvador once before. But, surprise, he’s back in the U.S. to face federal human trafficking charges. 

Prosecutors say he’s been smuggling minors and MS-13 goons across the country like it’s his day job.

 
Now, a judge in the case decided Abrego Garcia should be released while awaiting trial, even though everyone and their dog knows ICE is itching to scoop him up the second he puts a toe out the door. On Thursday, it was confirmed: he’s getting nabbed by ICE the moment he’s cut loose. “Our plan is that he will be taken into ICE custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” said Jonathan Guynn, deputy assistant attorney general at the DOJ’s civil division. Guynn also dropped that Abrego Garcia’s headed to a “third country,” not El Salvador. Where exactly? Nobody’s saying yet, but I'm hoping for Gaza.

The Trump administration just scored a big win at the Supreme Court, clearing the way for this deportation shuffle. The ruling says the government can send illegal aliens to any “third country” that’ll take them, no need to ship them back to their homeland. This could open the floodgates for thousands of deportations, including Abrego Garcia’s second trip out of the U.S.

 
Where’s this Salvadoran national going? We simply don't know yet. The Trump administration has done this before with Vietnamese and Cuban nationals. The got one-way tickets to South Sudan. 

DHS isn’t messing around, either. They’re adamant Abrego Garcia won’t be walking scot-free from deportation.

Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin put it bluntly: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a dangerous criminal illegal alien,” who “will never go free on American soil.” But when it comes to the details of where he’s going? Crickets. “Due to operational security, ICE does not confirm future removal operations until they have landed in respective countries,” a DHS spokesman said. So, we wait.

Hey guys, if you like my blog,  please feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee  It’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused, albeit somewhat hyper. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

SCOTUS rules on TN's stance on gender mutilation: Dem's heads explode

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling upholding Tennessee’s prohibition on so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The decision, a 6-3 ruling, represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing national debate over the balance between individual rights, parental authority, and the state’s role in safeguarding vulnerable populations, in this case, children.

The Court’s decision reinforces Tennessee’s ability to enact laws protecting minors from medical interventions such as puberty blockers, hormone therapies, and surgical procedures, which remain the subject of intense medical and ethical scrutiny. 

At its core, the ruling hinges on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, with the Court concluding that Tennessee’s law does not impermissibly discriminate based on sex or gender identity. Instead, the state’s restrictions are grounded in a legitimate interest: shielding children from their parents and the potential risks associated with these treatments.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts articulated the Court’s reasoning with precision, emphasizing that the law “does not classify on any bases that warrant heightened review” and “incorporates two classifications: one based on age…and another based on medical use.” 

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that any statutory reference to sex automatically triggers heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. As Roberts noted, “This Court has never suggested that mere reference to sex is sufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny.” This clarity underscores a critical point: not every law touching on sex or gender demands the judiciary’s most exacting review.

The majority opinion further clarified that “some medical treatments and procedures are uniquely bound up in sex.” Citing FDA guidance, Roberts pointed out that “[r]esearch has shown that biological differences between men and women…may contribute to variations seen in the safety and efficacy of drugs.” Because Tennessee’s law applies uniformly to all minors, regardless of sex, the Court found no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect.

A key aspect of the ruling addressed the plaintiffs’ contention that the law disproportionately impacts transgender individuals, who are the primary seekers of “gender-affirming” treatments. Roberts countered this claim, explaining that the law targets the medical diagnosis: gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence, rather than transgender status itself. “Although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence, just as only biological women can become pregnant, there is a ‘lack of identity’ between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnoses,” he wrote. 

This distinction is critical, as it situates the law within the state’s broader authority to regulate medical interventions for minors, rather than as an attack on a protected class.

The ruling arrives against a backdrop of fierce cultural and political division. Advocates for “gender-affirming care” argue that these treatments are essential for the mental health and well-being of transgender youth, often citing unsubstantiated claims that withholding such interventions could lead to severe psychological harm, including suicide. 

Yet, the Court’s decision reflects a growing skepticism, particularly in light of emerging evidence from European nations. Countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden have begun to question the efficacy and safety of these treatments, with some moving away from the “gender-affirming” model in favor of more cautious, evidence-based approaches. Studies from these nations have raised concerns about the long-term consequences of puberty blockers and hormone therapies, prompting a reevaluation of protocols for treating minors with gender dysphoria.

For critics of Tennessee’s law, the ruling may be seen as a setback for individual autonomy and progressive medical frameworks. They argue that such restrictions undermine the ability of transgender youth and their families to access care they deem necessary. Conversely, supporters of the decision view it as a victory for child protection, emphasizing the state’s responsibility to safeguard minors from irreversible medical decisions amid evolving scientific understanding. 

The debate is further complicated by reports that some medical professionals have pressured parents with dire warnings about the risks of refusing these treatments, a practice that raises ethical questions about informed consent.

From a constitutional perspective, the ruling underscores the judiciary’s deference to state legislatures in matters of public health and child welfare, provided those laws do not violate fundamental rights. By framing Tennessee’s law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical purpose, the Court avoided wading into the broader cultural wars over gender identity. Yet, the decision is likely to fuel further litigation, as other states with similar laws face challenges in federal courts.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond Tennessee, touching on the delicate interplay between individual rights, parental authority, and state power. As the science surrounding “gender-affirming care” continues to evolve, so too will the legal and ethical questions at the heart of this debate. 

For now, the Supreme Court has spoken, affirming that states may act to protect minors from treatments whose long-term effects remain uncertain. Whether this decision will serve as a model for other jurisdictions or ignite further contention remains to be seen. Let's hope it does.

Hey guys, if you like my blog,  feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee  It’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused, albeit somewhat hyper. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

SCOTUS Gives Trump a 'W' on Scrapping Parole for 500K Migrants, Sotomayor and Jackson Aren’t Thrilled

The Supreme Court just tossed President Donald Trump a huge win in his border crackdown saga. On Friday, the justices put a hold on a lower court’s attempt to stop the President from deporting roughly 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This is a short-term victory for Trump as he doubles down on his immigration hardline in round two of his presidency.

The White House was ready to rumble. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t mince words on Tuesday, saying, “The White House will ‘fight this in a court of law’” after a judge tried to block Trump’s move to end a parole program for folks from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. 

What’s at stake here? Glad you asked.

The court’s order temporarily halts a ruling that stopped Trump from yanking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these migrants. TPS is like a legal shield that lets people live and work in the U.S. if their home countries are a hot mess, such as  disasters, wars, or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.” 

Trump’s team wants to rip that shield away, and for now, the Supreme Court’s got their back.

The decision, like most of the court’s emergency orders, came without a signature or explanation. Classic Supreme Court move to simply drop the ruling and let everyone else figure out why.

But leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson had plenty to say, and it wasn’t pretty. In a fiery dissent, they tore into the court’s call. Jackson, who doesn't know what a woman is, didn’t hold back, saying the court “plainly botched” its assessment and ignored the “devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens [aka illegal aliens] while their legal claims are pending.” 

She went on: “While it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize, not maximize, harm to litigating parties.” 

The TPS program’s been a lifeline for migrants, especially illegal ones. It is to be renewed every 18 months like clockwork, most recently under former alleged President Joe Biden, before he wandered out of office. 

Illegal migrant flipping off police

But Trump’s crew, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, came in hot this February, trying to pull the plug on protections for a chunk of Venezuelan nationals. Their reasoning? It’s not in the “national interest.” Noem’s been out here signing executive orders alongside Trump, who’s clearly not slowing down, and this scares the crap out of Democrats.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wasn’t playing with his toes either. He told the justices earlier this month to let the administration do its thing, accusing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of overstepping. “The district court’s reasoning is untenable,” Sauer argued, saying the TPS program involves “particularly discretionary, sensitive, and foreign-policy-laden judgments of the Executive Branch regarding immigration policy.” 

In other words, back off, judge—Trump’s got this.

This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court’s given Trump a green light lately. Earlier this month, they okayed his plan to revoke protected status for 350,000 Venezuelan illegal alien migrants, clearing the path for deportations. 

So, what’s next? The White House is gearing up for a legal brawl, and with Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, throwing punches in dissent, this fight’s far from over. 

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

SCOTUS backs Trump's removal of Biden's appointees from federal boards

The Supreme Court just handed President Trump a. big win, backing his move to remove two Democratic appointees, Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), from their federal perches. 

This Thursday ruling is a big deal, settling a heated fight over how much power a president has to fire agency officials who don’t jive with his agenda.

The drama kicked off when Chief Justice John Roberts hit the pause button on reinstating Wilcox and Harris, both Biden picks who got the axe from Trump earlier this year. Both cried foul, calling their terminations “unlawful” in lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court, but the Supreme Court’s decision suggests Trump’s got the upper hand—for now.

That said, the court dropped a hint it might not be so quick to let Trump replace Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who’s been in Trump’s crosshairs for not slashing interest rates fast enough. (Good luck firing a guy who controls the money printer, right?)

At the heart of this mess is a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor, which said presidents can’t just fire independent board members without a good reason. The question before the justices: Can Wilcox and Harris, both Biden appointees, keep their jobs while the courts wrestle with whether to chuck Humphrey’s into the legal dustbin?

The court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—weren’t having it. Kagan came out swinging in her dissent: “Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency.” She didn’t stop there, accusing her colleagues of itching to give Trump “the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever).” 

That’s Kagan saying that the majority’s playing favorites, and it’s not subtle.

Trump’s legal team, meanwhile, was all about keeping Wilcox and Harris out of their jobs while the case grinds through the lower courts. They even pushed for the Supreme Court to skip the usual appeals process and fast-track the whole thing with a rare “certiorari before judgment” move, because letting Wilcox and Harris back in would, in their words, “entrust” the president’s powers “for the months or years that it could take the courts to resolve this litigation.” That, they argued, “would manifestly cause irreparable harm to the President and to the separation of powers.” 

In other words, if Trump can’t control his own executive branch, it’s chaos, and he’d have to spend months undoing whatever these two do in the meantime.

Rewind to earlier this month when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 7–4 to put Wilcox and Harris back on their boards, leaning on Humphrey’s Executor and another oldie, Wiener v. United States. Those rulings say the president’s power to fire members of independent agencies like the NLRB and MSPB isn’t absolute. The D.C. Circuit wasn’t buying Trump’s argument for an administrative stay to keep the removals in place, pointing out that the Supreme Court has never overturned these precedents. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,” the judges wrote. 

Fair point, but it didn’t last long.

Trump’s team ran straight to the Supreme Court, which slapped an emergency stay on the reinstatement, keeping Wilcox and Harris sidelined. In their own filings, Wilcox and Harris’s lawyers begged the court to let them back in until the appeals process plays out. They warned against rushing things, with Harris’s team telling the justices, “Rushing such important matters risks making mistakes and destabilizing other areas of the law.” Wilcox’s camp doubled down, arguing that yanking her from the NLRB’s three-member panel could “bring an immediate and indefinite halt to the NLRB’s critical work of adjudicating labor-relations disputes.” 

Their point is that kicking her out doesn’t just tweak policy, it grinds the agency to a halt, which they say screws over Congress’s mandate.

This isn’t the only case poking at the president’s firing powers. Hampton Dellinger, a Biden appointee to the Office of Special Counsel, also sued after getting fired on Feb. 7. He argued he could only be fired for job performance issues, which Trump’s team didn’t bother citing in their dismissal email. Dellinger dropped his suit after the D.C. Circuit sided with Trump in an unsigned order, but the broader fight’s far from over.

And the Justice Department is not hiding its cards. Back in February, they told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) they’re gunning to overturn Humphrey’s Executor altogether. If that happens, it’s a whole new ballgame for how much control a president has over the so-called “independent” agencies. 

Buckle up—this one’s got legs.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet