Yeah, because he's the son of the commerce secretary, so (supposedly) has access to the internal deliberations within the government.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent | next [-]

No, because "the government" isn't one blob. The court system is separate from the administration. And the supreme court justices aren't giving the internal deliberations to someone in the administration, especially when the administration is one of the parties in the case.

▲

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

.... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs? Even FDR knew the 'separation' was a farce, that's how he magically got the court to go along with progressive programs they prior didn't support, after the 'Switch in time that saved nine.'

SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so.

------ re: "2 of 3" below due to throttling--------

A vote to refund here was not a vote against the admin, it was a vote to simplify the laundering of the tax. It was a vote to put the money straight into the coffers of admin insiders like Lutnick et al financial engineering scheme. Meanhwile it did not invalidate tariffs, as Trump immediately pivoted to a different tariff structure.

As a second note, the profit here was actually not dependent nearly as much on the vote as the insider information. The fact the best any rebuttal can come up with is the vote might have been 'wrong' is basically totally defaulting to the insider trading element which means you are totally yielding the underlying premise.

That is, the only 'vote' against the admin in this case would be one that went against their insider information. Failure to note this is how the justices and admin have swindled you and the public. The very posing of this comment of rayiner et al reveals how they tricked you.

▲

jcranmer a day ago | parent | next [-]

> what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?

They were nominated in Trump's first term, which had a very qualitatively different cabinet assembled around Trump, one much less focused on sycophancy and pleasing Trump. I don't think anybody in Trump's cabinet 6 years ago was thinking about the potential powers a president had in being able to change tariffs based on how he felt waking up in the morning, much less interrogation of judicial candidates based on how willing they were to go along with that.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But 2 of those 3 voted against Trump! And 2 of the ones who voted for him were nominated by a free-trader republican.

▲

irishcoffee a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump.

You can blame RBG for one of those. It fascinates me that Biden made the same mistake RBG did, I’ll always wonder how different the would would be if she had stepped down and the democratic party had held a real primary.

I don’t like trump, I think he stinks. The democratic party has a few own-goals in this current game.

▲

petcat a day ago | parent | next [-]

I can't blame Ginsurg. She was still capable of performing her duties even at the end. She resisted an overtly political retirement and it wasn't even clear if a compatible replacement would be confirmed even if she did retire early.

It's unfortunate how it went, but I respect her decision.

▲

andsoitis a day ago | parent [-]

You don’t think her ego got in the way?

▲

petcat a day ago | parent [-]

I think she had a principled perspective not to politicize her role as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe her ideology was wrong.

	▲	andsoitis 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I think she had a principled perspective not to politicize her role as a Supreme Court Justice. I can buy that.

▲

rayiner a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don’t like trump, I think he stinks. The democratic party has a few own-goals in this current game.

You guys should have nominated Amy Klobuchar as VP so you had a credible backup when it became apparent that Biden was too old to run again. That’s a mistake that’s going to continue holding you back, since Biden made South Carolina the first primary state: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2025/06/2028-dem-frontrunn....

As Obama said, “never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up.”

	▲	irishcoffee a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don’t have a “you guys” :)

▲

expedition32 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Important to note that Republican does not automatically mean "Trumpist".

Ofcourse most American politicians are pathetic losers who immediately cave but judges are generally people who are used to dealing with thugs.

And if you ever wondered why judges cannot be fired by the Executive branch now you know.

▲

gruez a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>.... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?

Given that the 2/3 justices appointed by Trump voted against the tariffs, what's the implication here? That Trump deliberately picked anti-tariff justices just so he can engage in a rube goldberg plan to enact tariffs, buy tariff refunds on the cheap, and then have them revoked?

	▲	mothballed a day ago \| parent [-]
		Trump can profit either way, the key is the insider knowledge to bet for or against them. Admin insiders financially engineered where they profited from refunds. Any vote towards what the insider information pointed to was a vote 'for' the admin as they had financially engineered their winnings based on that. And meanwhile Trump immediately turned to a new tariff structure. The vote they gave was the strongest vote in favor of the admin insiders they could have given, and meanwhile didn't actually stop Trump from continuing on with the scheme.

▲

parineum a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> .... what? 3 of the justices were nominated by Trump. You think the people appointing them didn't have internal deliberations before they were appointed, including about things Trump had thought about like tariffs?

Following that logic, it make sense that those 3 voted with the administration.

Oh wait...

▲

mothballed a day ago | parent [-]

I don't see how a vote against is a vote against the administration. The whole point here is their corruption machine profited more off the justices voting against the tariff and for refunds. The tariffs were a mechanism to feign a tax for public purpose but then 'refund' them turning it into a tax to private business and Lutnick's financial engineering. Funneling the money straight into corrupt private enterprise via 'refund' is even easier for Trump than having to launder it through public coffers.

The key is whether they had insider information given their association with these justices.

▲

danielmarkbruce a day ago | parent [-]

>> SCOTUS largely functions as a post-facto legitimization machine for those that appoint them. They do not interpret the constitution so much as serve as god-people in funny costumes that provide the cultural message from god that the actions of their political persuasion were legal (or illegal) even in cases where a historical and literal reading of the constitution would otherwise find you with no way to find them legitimate if not for man in black robe say so.

You keep changing what you are saying.

	▲	mothballed a day ago \| parent [-]
		(1) they likely to have insider information. (2) Is that SCOTUS functions as a legitimization process (3) Is that de-legitimizing this particular tariff regime, while trump immediately pivots to a new tariff, is a best case scenario for the admin insiders as it lets them profit immensely from refund corruption while still pivoting immediately to a new tariff. The vote was one in favor of the Trump insiders. (4) It is hilarious that the best counter your argument et al includes is just glossing over the insider aspect, which means you're just yielding the entire underpinning to this thread to me, which is more than enough to satisfy the premise on its own even if you reject this particular vote as being in the service of the admin insiders. Of course, if you just smugly quote half of what I said and keep ping ponging one side or the other when I study the other half, citing muh changed argument, then you can play this fraudulent argument that pretends I "changed" what I said. This reveals your argument as a deliberate fraud so I will leave you the last word to lie further to the ether, rest assured I will not read whatever non-sense follows.

▲

petcat a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You're saying that he had access to all of the Supreme Court Justices' chambers?

▲

indoordin0saur a day ago | parent [-]

You don't need to have access to everything for it to be insider trading, just more than the general public. Lutnick would know what case they are making to the court, perhaps the confidence of the attorneys in winning as well as information on how the case was going.

	▲	tacticalturtle a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Supreme Court transcripts of arguments are posted to supreme court.gov the same day the arguments are made: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr... There’s no secret sauce here - their guess as to how the case is going is as good as any outside observer, and based on the questions made by the justices.
	▲	parineum a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		All of that is based on public knowledge, including the confidence of attorneys.