Before it turned into "one of those days" I had the TV on while writing. Specifically I was listening to audio of oral arguments in the Trump tariffs case. Thankfully Trump didn't, as he'd threatened to do attend himself but for the record sent a few top lackeys who sat together during proceedings. Anyway, as is customary each side had its lead lawyer give a (very) short summary of their argument before the traditional statement of being ready to take question. Solicitor General John Sauer went first.
I want to focus on a couple of broad themes rather than dig into the weeds of individual questions from specific Justices to lawyers from both sides. Instead, if you want those kinds of details you can check them out in a 'live feed' report from the Associated Press that posted continual updates during the proceedings. If you don't know, legal experts caution against reading too much into how Justices question lawyers appearing before them. It's not uncommon for them to see certain to rule one way, only for the decision to be the opposite of what Justices seemed to think during oral arguments. Still, I felt it was worth the time to listen in, and if you like details your own time to read the link.
Having said all that, as I mentioned there are some broad themes I'd like to briefly lay out there. History will look back on the Roberts Court as having started out mostly moving cautiously. The key word there is mostly because from the start conservative Justices have as the title suggests twisted themselves like pretzels to come up with a ruling that satisfies their POLITICAL beliefs. That has become more frequent over time and once Trump came along shifted into high gear, and then where we now stand. In overdrive.
Changing philosophy/rationale and even just making sh*t up when required has become depressingly common. While the most breathtakingly audacious example most will think of is the Immunity ruling it's far from the first. So let's take a look at two particular things that characterize the Roberts Court. Hypocrisy and obvious twisting of the Constitution, law and increasingly precedent to reverse engineer to the POLITICAL end they want to achieve. And as I said at times when necessary they just make things up. For all the happy talk, even from the (only) three Democratic appointees about the court being "Apolitical" I say if you believe that I've got a case of Trump Steaks to sell you, and a case of Trump Vodka to wash them down with!
The Federalist Society GROOMED Justices are proponents of the Unitary Executive theory of law which says a President's powers set forth in Article II of the Constitution are virtually unlimited. Well, as long as a REPUBLICAN is President. If it's a Democrat then Article I (Congress) reigns supreme. And if Congress is controlled by the GOP a Democratic President needs Congress' permission to so much as take a crap. (I did mentioned hypocrisy already) The conservative Justices in recent decades have been adherents to either an Originalism or Plain Text reading theory of the Constitution when hearing cases and making rulings. While the two Constitutional schools of thought are often conflated they are in fact two separate ways of viewing things.
Alas, hypocrisy has as I've said become a common factor. Sometimes there's nothing in the plain text of either the Constitution or a statute that supports the ruling they want to hand down. That's when they get into "make up sh*t" territory. The same is true for the Originalists who say we have to interpret any and every thing they way the founders did in their time. That of course begs all kinds of questions as so much that hadn't been invented yet (think simple like light bulbs instead of candles, or a person flying along in a winged machine, or medical treatments we take for granted) that in some places back then would still have gotten people executed as being the Devil's work and/or witchcraft.
Worse, even when there are actual records be they notes taken during the writing and ratification of the Constitution, or letters and journals written by the founders in the moment and afterwards) conservative Justices will ignore them sometimes. Or say something like 'well, while it SEEMS they are saying one thing what they REALLY meant was..." and have nothing on which to base their assertation.
As I said, they decide early on (often I'm sure before oral arguments) the result they will hand down and ignore the Constitution, precedent and statutes that are sometimes quite specific to come up with the ruling they want. They are doing EXACTLY what Leonard Leo and the others who over four decades ago created and funded the Federalist Society (and other similar, less known groups) dreamed of doing.
That leads me back to the problem the Fascist Federalist Society F**kwads are now now confronted with. The Constitution grants Congress power to levy tariffs and limits the President's ability to do so. There is ample case law and precedent that backs this up. This article from conservative leaning Politico published prior to oral arguments does a good job of laying out the dilemma they've put themselves in by taking up the case:
The looming Supreme Court showdown over President Donald Trump's tariffs amounts to an epic clash between two of the most deeply ingrained tenets of the conservative legal movement.
The first is that presidents need and are entitled to extreme deference on matters of national security and foreign policy. That precept suggests the six conservative justices may be willing to uphold Trump's unprecedented move to bypass Congress and unilaterally impose sweeping global tariffs.
On the other hand, an indisputable hallmark of the Roberts court is a deep mistrust for government meddling in the free market. That ideological predilection, which has fueled a slew of pro-business, anti-regulatory rulings, could prompt the court's conservatives to view Trump's tariffs more skeptically than they view many of his other, non-economic policies.
"I think that some of the justices that matter are going to feel a bit torn," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at William and Mary Law School. "What's interesting here is that this case requires some of the conservative justices to confront a conflict between different strands of their own jurisprudence."
Do they again please Trump by giving him what he wants or do they act like Justices of the Supreme Court and decide based on facts and the law? HA. Just kidding. They will drive themselves batshit insane coming up with some tortured legal non-logic to please Trumpty no matter how twisted they have to get to do his bidding. Hence the title. And the title picture because Roberts isn't the only conservative Justice who wants to be able to contort themselves into seemingly impossible positions and seconds later dance about gracefully. Oh, they've find a way to "pretzel" themselves into backing Trump but they'd walk away lurching about like I do - I'm disabled and have to lean heavily on a cane just to get around my tiny apartment!
What will be interesting is how long SCOTUS sits on the case. They don't HAVE to render a decision until June 30, 2026. They aren't stupid and know damn well the damage that's being done to our economy. They, like elected GOPers got a stark reminder from voters that even in red states folks are angry with the Trump and the Republican Party. The Dobbs decision taught them a bitter lesson that unlike times past voters see what they've (and elected Republicans) have done and no longer 'get over it' after a month or two of anger.
No, voters have developed long memories. Memories that can even last longer than a single election cycle. Their worst fear is that Democrats take over both the House and the Senate a year from now. Hearings the Democrats can hold on the abuses of Trump, Congressional Republicans and even THEM won't have to rely on made up bullshit like we've been seeing from the GOP. That could well lead to a fractured, post Trump GOP losing even bigger in 2028 and theirs and Leonard Leo's and the Federalist Society's worst fears. An expanded SCOTUS that takes away their ill gotten power.
They could head that off with a quick decision telling Trump to go pound sand and hoping Senate Democrats filibuster (as Johnson and Thune would count on happening) any Trump ordered legislation imposing the same kinds of tariffs he's been employing. That MIGHT stop the bleeding for the GOP, which has a lot of Congress Critters who are feeling vulnerable (because they ARE) after this week's off year elections. The question is how afraid are they of Trump? He might demand and Johnson might have the House vote out bogus Articles of Impeachment but no Justice has ever been impeached, much less removed in our history and I don't see it happening now.
Trump's popularity is still pretty strong with his MAGAs but even among them it's starting to slip. Overall he's underwater on any topic pollsters can poll on and getting more so with each passing month. Hell, each week! So in the end SCOTUS GOPers will have a choice to make in which set of deeply ingrained principles they will adhere to. Continue to expand Presidential authority or adhere to the free market principles the people who paid all that money to get them where they are believe in? They will want to do both which is why I say they will go into proverbial 'pretzel mode.'