"The justices did find unanimity 45 percent of the time, up two points from last term. They joined together, for instance..."

"... to say a Texas man could not be prosecuted for violating a law banning drug users from gun possession merely because he frequently used marijuana, and they agreed that a New Jersey anti-abortion group could bring a challenge in federal court to government efforts to seek its donor list. There were also examples of ideologically diverse lineups during the term. In a 5-to-4 vote on Monday, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals in supporting Mississippi’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots, rejecting a push by the Trump administration to invalidate a state law. Justice Barrett also joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion this week to uphold birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds. Mr. Trump appointed Justice Barrett to the court in his first term, and her tendency to occasionally rule against his priorities has drawn harsh criticism from the president’s allies. Justice Gorsuch, who has a libertarian streak, also aligned at times with his colleagues on the left, more often than he has in the past.... But even so, a conservative bloc routinely controlled the outcome in cases large and small, with the center of the bench shifting considerably to the right...."

From "Despite Some Losses for Trump, Supreme Court Delivers Enduring Conservative Wins/The justices pushed back on some of President Trump’s signature moves, but they also expanded presidential power and supplied victories on long-sought conservative goals" (NYT).

"Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump’s Kennedy Center plans were blocked by a judge. What happens next?/The ruling has thrown the Washington institution’s immediate future into a state of uncertainty" (WaPo)(gift link).

IN THE COMMENTS: Fred Drinkwater said: "The name change was a deliberate 'last straw' intended to provoke this judicial response."

That really does make the most sense. It was insanely hamhanded. I'm going to assume he didn't want to fix this place, and the best — or most entertaining — way to avoid blame for letting it rot was to bait a judge into preventing him from saving it.

ADDED: There's a new piece up at WaPo now, "Trump’s name may come off the Kennedy Center. He could still destroy it. The Kennedy Center saga encapsulates all of the needless destruction of the Trump administration. The center’s troubles may not be over yet." That's by Philip Kennicott. Key insight: "The worst thing Trump could do right now is nothing, simply remain chair and let the center languish. He could decline to authorize budgets or renovations, leave the calendar empty or pocket plans for recovery. The center would be stuck in perpetual suspended animation.... His angry messages since the court ruling prove without a doubt what has been obvious all along: He never cared for the center, for the arts or culture...."

"A federal judge in Miami reopened President Trump’s... case against the I.R.S.... saying that she wanted to investigate 'grievous allegations' that the hasty deal to resolve it was 'premised on deception.'..."

"Judge [Kathleen M.] Williams’s decision came in response to court papers filed on Wednesday by a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges who urged her to bring the case back to life and dig into the details of the agreement to settle it.... Before she closed the case, Judge Williams, an Obama appointee, had in fact questioned whether the lawsuit presented an actual conflict that she could adjudicate, given that Mr. Trump was on both sides of the suit, bringing claims against a federal agency that he controlled.... In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was 'empowered to investigate serious misconduct' in any case before her, and ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to tell her by June 12 whether the lawsuit should be formally reopened because 'the court was the victim of a fraud.'..."

From: "Judge Reopens Trump’s I.R.S. Suit and Questions His ‘Weaponization’ Fund/The ruling was a blow to both President Trump, who had voluntarily dismissed the suit last week, and to the Justice Department, which used the suit to establish a fund likely intended for Trump allies" (NYT).

"On Saturday night, May 23rd, a shooter once again sought to murder the President, his family, and his staff at the historic White House complex."

"We submit this urgent filing to update the Court on a second attempted assassination on the President within a single month. Last night, shortly after 6:00 p.m., an armed assassin approached a White House security checkpoint near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, professionally pulled a high caliber gun from a bag, and opened fire in the exact direction of the White House. Brave Secret Service officers returned fire. The gunman was killed...."

From the Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of the Government’s Motion for an Indicative Ruling Dissolving the Court’s Injunction, filed yesterday in National Trust for Historic Preservation v. National Park Service, the case about the White House ballroom, posted by Trump at Truth Social this morning.

"There's something that's kind of weird out there... Can I call it the painfully unsophisticated, highly educated political hobbyist?"

"And this is the audience for an awful lot of political media... and it is people who have a pretty good degree of education. They're highly attuned to politics and they're highly partisan. And that last bit of it — the highly partisan — actually means they become much less sophisticated about politics and law because... the volume consumers of political media are the most wrong about their political opponents. So... your median TED Talk listener is probably... a very partisan audience.... And if... you're left-leaning, and you're highly partisan, and you're highly attuned to political media, what is the one thing that you have in your mind about the Supreme Court? Totally biased against this [challenge to Trump's power]. You can't win. It's always gonna rule for Trump, blah, blah, blah.... They are just deluged with... it's rigged, it's rigged, it's illegitimate, it's rigged..... So then you have this attorney come in who's a fellow liberal who won in front of the six three Supreme Court. And he is going to, if that's your mindset, look like Zeus walking down from Mount Olympus.... You know, I walked in to the Lion's den of the 6-3 Republican court and got a 6-3 Republican court to strike down the signature policy of a Republican administration. Look at me. I am the God king!.... And it is a message that lands with a particular audience incredibly well because... it's premised on all of their false assumptions about the Supreme Court. If you actually walked in with a realistic view, he was the favorite. He was the favorite!"

Said David French in the new episode of the podcast "Advisory Opinions," "The TED Talk Heard ‘Round the World" (at 00:44:17)(transcript at that link).

And here's the Neal Katyal TED talk they're talking about.

"Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the court’s now-routine 'shadow docket' rulings on presidential power."

Gift link.

Excerpt: "Writing on formal letterhead, but addressing one another by their first names and signing off with their initials, they sound notes of irritation, air grievances and plead for more time. In addition to the usual legal materials, they cite a blog post and, twice, a television interview. They sometimes engage with one another’s arguments. But they often simply talk past each other.... When colleagues warned the chief justice that he was proposing an unprecedented move, he was dismissive. 'I recognize that the posture of this stay request is not typical,' he wrote. But he argued that the Obama plan, which aimed to regulate coal-fired plants, was 'the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the power sector,' and too big, costly and consequential for the court not to act immediately. In the Trump era, he and the other conservative justices have repeatedly empowered the president through their shadow docket rulings. By contrast, the papers reveal a court wielding those same powers to block Mr. Obama...."

"These proceedings improperly threaten an open-ended, freewheeling inquiry into executive branch decision-making on matters of national security..."

"... that implicate ongoing military and diplomatic initiatives. This judicial intrusion into the autonomy of a coequal department cannot be remedied by a later appeal from a contempt conviction."

Wrote Judge Neomi Rao, for the majority, quoted in "Appeals Court Ends Contempt Inquiry Into Deportation Flights/A federal judge’s nearly yearlong effort to investigate whether the Trump administration had violated his order had become a point of contention in the president’s battles with the courts" (NYT): 

Here's the opinion, from the District of Columbia court. The judge below was James E. Boasberg. 

"President Donald Trump plans to sit in on Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship, making him the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the nation’s highest court."

AP reports.

It’s not the first time Trump has considered showing up for a high court hearing. Last year, Trump said that he badly wanted to attend a hearing on whether he overstepped federal law with his sweeping tariffs, but he decided against it, saying it would have been a distraction....

“I’m going,” Trump said, when the upcoming arguments in the birthright citizenship case were mentioned. To a follow-up question clarifying that he planned to go in person, Trump said, “I think so, I do believe.”

He sat in court when they were trying him for those crimes they convicted him of. He knows how to sit in court.

From the transcript of the press conference:

With 4 Supreme Court Justices in attendance at the SOTU, Trump called the tariff opinion "unfortunate" and "disappointing."

He didn't condemn the Court or even say it got the law wrong. Here's the transcript (NYT). You can see that he accepts the Court's role in saying what the law is, and he's processed the loss and has moved on to finding new ways to win:

President Trump speaks about the tariff case in terms of shame and pride.

It was a legal opinion about the meaning of words in a statute and 6 justices went one way and 3 went the other. Trump would have us think of the Justices as children within our family, 6 of whom brought embarrassment to us and 3 of whom made us proud. I find such talk inane, but it might influence some people, that is, it might work as propaganda.

Have a listen:

Excerpt: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the Court — absolutely ashamed — for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom, and love of our country — which is right now very proud of those justices.... The Democrats on the Court are... frankly, a disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no no matter how good a case you have — it's a no. You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people.... What a shame.... They are very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests...."

He made it about shame and pride and loyalty. What evidence does he have that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests?

"Is President Trump serious about annexing Greenland?"/"President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security."

 

BESSENT: It might not be next year. Might not be in 4 years. But down the road this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in. So better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States.... The Europeans project weakness. The U.S. projects strength....

"I’ll put my cards on the table," said Justice Gorsuch. "Maybe... there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government...."

In the oral argument this morning in Trump v. Slaughter, Justice Gorsuch questioned Amit Agarwal, counsel for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the FTC commissioner fired by President Trump. This is the entire back-and-forth, centering on the idea of the President's duty to execute all the laws. All you lawyers can see where this is going: If the President has a duty, then he must have the power.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: You agree that [the President] has a duty to faithfully execute all the laws. 

MR. AGARWAL: Yes.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Civil and criminal.

MR. AGARWAL: We agree that the Constitution imposes on the President a duty to faithfully execute the laws, absolutely.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: All the laws?

"Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get."

"They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!! Don’t be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT,FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN! We will immediately END the Extortionist Shutdown, get ALL of our agenda passed, and make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again have the chance to DESTROY AMERICA! Republicans, you will rue the day that you didn’t TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!!! BE TOUGH, BE SMART, AND WIN!!! This is much bigger than the Shutdown, this is the survival of our Country!"

Writes Trump, at Truth Social.

1. What does "pick up two States" mean? I think it is a prediction that when Democrats next acquire a simple majority in both houses, they will vote for statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.

2. What does "Their two objectors are gone!!!" mean? The "two objectors" must be Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski —[but see #8] — but they are not "gone"... if "gone" means no longer in the Senate. But I think it means they count as nothing now, because we have the votes without them. Or it's a Trumpian way to say: Let them go. They're already gone. 

You'll just have to eat their lunch all by yourself....

3. I think Trump is saying all hell will break out anyway, so best to be the first to unleash the hell, and maybe, just maybe, the GOP hell will make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again win a majority. Meanwhile, half of America will think the deranged Republicans are destroying America. In the Trumpian vision of life — it's about winning — the question is just which half of America gets to turn America into what the other half regards as Destroyed America. 

4. Or maybe Trump's outburst is just part of the art of the deal — the part where he scares you so badly you accepts the sensible offer you were resisting. Here, the Democrats need only vote to end the shutdown.

5. Another meaning of "gone" — which I don't think is in play here — is the beatnik's "gone." Sample usage, from Jack Kerouac's "Dharma Bums": "Among the people standing in the audience was Rosie Buchanan, a girl with a short haircut, red-haired, bony, handsome, a real gone chick and friend of everybody of any consequence on the Beach...." Lisa Murkowski is bony and handsome. Forget Rosie Buchanan, Lisa Murkowski is a real gone chick:

6. Since I've said something about feminine beauty, let me provide balance with something about masculine beauty. I watched that Eagles clip, from 1974, and was amazed to see that they'd all styled themselves in the manner of Napoleon Dynamite.

7. But who was Rosie Buchanan? They say it was Natalie Jackson.

8. "Poor Rosie—she had been absolutely certain that the world was real and fear was real and now what was real? 'At least,' I thought, 'she's in Heaven now, and she knows.'"

9. As commenters to this post are pointing out, "Their two objectors" makes much more sense as a reference to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who really are gone from the Senate. They were theirs — the Democrats' — and they actually did object to the Democratic Senators' effort to vote away the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act in 2022. 

"Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.. opined that race can be considered along with other factors in forming reasonable suspicion to stop someone for an immigration check..."

"... such as where people are gathering and what jobs they are working. 'To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a "relevant factor" when considered along with other salient factors,’ Kavanaugh wrote. The court’s three liberal justices sharply dissented. 'We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent. 'Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.'"

From "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area/The raids sparked major protests in Southern California. President Donald Trump deployed troops from the California National Guard and Marines in response" (WaPo).

"The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission despite a federal law..."

"... that is intended to restrict the White House’s power to control the agency.... Trump fired both Democratic commissioners on the five-person FTC in March, [Rebecca Kelly] Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Both challenged the move, although Bedoya later dropped out of the case. Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the agency’s website, as the case has made its way through the courts. The firings are a direct challenge to a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that upheld limits on the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners without cause, a restriction Congress imposed to protect the agency from political pressure. Under the 1914 law that set up the agency, members can only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"

From "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner/Trump's actions are in direct tension with a 1935 ruling that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners without cause" (NBC News).

"Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the agency’s website" — not anymore. 

ADDED: The fact that NBC News referred to the fired commissioners as "Democratic commissioners" gives away the game. According to Humphrey's Executor, the idea was that "The commission is to be nonpartisan; and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality." And "It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law." 

Who even remembers to pretend that was supposed to be the idea these days?!

"I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations... This is something that cannot be forgotten!..."

"I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use the Federalist Society as a recommending source on judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions."

Wrote Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks/The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed" (NYT). 

The article is by Charlie Savage, who says:

While Mr. Trump was out of power, a schism emerged between traditional legal conservatives and MAGA-style lawyers.... During the 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump had essentially made a deal with the conservative legal movement. In exchange for its support, he would outsource his judicial selections....

"Was it all bullshit?" — Trump asked, about Elon Musk's promise to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget.

We're told in "Inside Trump and Musk’s Complicated Relationship/The president and his aides have sometimes expressed frustration with Musk, but his advisers say the two remain close" (Wall Street Journal)(no paywall encountered).

We're also told Trump has called Musk "50% genius, 50% boy" or perhaps it was "90% genius, 10% boy."

More substantively:

Musk clashed with senior White House officials, as he made dramatic government cuts without consulting others, including White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and senior officials in the communications office, aides said. For several weeks, top Trump aides regularly learned from news reports or cabinet secretaries what DOGE was doing—even when the cost-cutting department laid off hundreds of people or sought sensitive data from agencies, according to the aides. He also clashed with personnel aides over vetting of some of his staff, some of the people said, believing the White House shouldn’t control his team at DOGE....

I assume that's a misplaced participle and that the phrase beginning with "believing" modifies "He." Don't they have AI to fix things like that?

Anyway, the person who could promise to cut $1 trillion was the person who envisioned himself with vast, unchecked power. Was it all bullshit? Not if you let him do it. Then it wouldn't be bullshit, though it might be crazy. Even on Trump's scale of sane to crazy.

Let me cherry-pick this:

Trump grew irritated in April when he learned Musk was getting a top-secret briefing at the Pentagon on China.... He said Musk getting the briefing was a conflict of interest, two administration officials said. Trump told aides that Musk, who has space contracts, shouldn’t be working at the Pentagon....

And here's some interesting material about the Wisconsin Supreme Court election:

White House aides were... dismayed at how involved Musk became in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, because they believed Brad Schimel, who was backed by Musk and the state’s Republican party, wasn’t going to win, and the race was becoming a referendum on Musk and Trump. Musk was dismissive of those concerns, saying the polling he commissioned showed Schimel had a chance. Trump became annoyed after doing a town hall with Schimel, telling advisers that he was done with him because Schimel couldn’t answer questions cogently about abortion, according to people familiar with the matter....

Of course, Schimel lost.  

"Attorney General Pam Bondi actually seemed to lean into the idea that this was part of the larger pattern of judicial wrongs that the administration now seeks to right...."

"Appearing on Fox News, Bondi discussed the Wisconsin case and another in which a local New Mexico judge resigned after a man the government has alleged is a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was arrested at his home. But rather than just focus on those two cases, Bondi repeatedly talked as if they were part of a broader problem with the judiciary. 'What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me,' Bondi said.... When Fox host John Roberts asked about the perception created by arresting judges — 'They’ll say this is a government that is expanding the powers of the Article One of the Constitution, now they’re arresting judges,' he said — Bondi didn’t dispute that. 'No one is above the law, John,' she said...."

I'm reading "Pam Bondi’s striking comments on arresting judges/Amid criticisms that the administration is intimidating judges, the attorney general didn’t exactly downplay the idea that this was part of a larger crusade against the judiciary" by Aaron Blake (in WaPo).

No one is above the law is what Trump antagonists said when the authorities arrested him. Four times.

I don't like the use of government authority as a political weapon or as a means of personal revenge, but that WaPo article doesn't get into the meat of what is alleged in the Wisconsin-judge case. Here's Pam Bondi explaining it (on ABC News):

The failure to rip a child from its mother's arms.

I'm reading "2-Year-Old U.S. Citizen Deported 'With No Meaningful Process,' Judge Suspects/A federal judge in Louisiana said the deportation of the child to Honduras with her mother, even though her father had filed an emergency petition, appeared to be 'illegal and unconstitutional'" (NYT).

“The government contends that this is all OK because the mother wishes that the child be deported with her,” wrote Judge Doughty, a conservative Trump appointee. “But the court doesn’t know that.”

Asserting that “it is illegal and unconstitutional to deport” a U.S. citizen, Judge Doughty set a hearing for May 16 to explore his “strong suspicion that the government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process.”

Facilitate and effectuate.

From the Supreme Court's statement in Noem v. Abrego Garcia:

On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to "facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7." ... 

The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs....

That's what you call "minimalism."