Donald Trump Removing Supreme Court Justices Imagined in Court Papers

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Newsweek

Published Apr 23, 2025 at 5:09 AM EDT | Updated Apr 23, 2025 at 11:50 AM EDT


A group of attorney generals have hypothesized about President Donald Trump trying to remove high-ranking judges like U.S. Supreme Court justices, in a letter supporting two Federal Trade Commission commissioners' lawsuit against their own removal. Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both Democrats, are suing Trump and his administration, over the president's efforts to remove them from their posts last last month.

The pair argue the president lacks the authority to fire them. In an amicus brief filed on Friday, senior Democrat state legal officials—including attorney generals from Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, and Illinois—compared the firing to Trump removing Article III judges, a group that includes the high court justices. The White House has been contacted via email for comment.

Why It Matters

The lawsuit sets up another legal confrontation between the Trump administration and Democrat states over the president's power to remove senior federal workers.

What To Know

In the letter to presiding U.S. District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan, the group argued the president is trying to assert "powers he does not [have]." "The Administration essentially asserts that even if the President has no power to remove an officer, he can do it anyway, and there is nothing federal courts can do about it," it said. "That is not, and cannot be, the law." The group said if the court finds it could not take action against the administration removing the FTC commissioners it "would have untenable consequences," using the hypothetical scenario of the president trying to remove senior judges.

Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-removing-supreme-court-justices-imagined-court-papers-2062549

---

Link to Colorado AG Phil Weiser PRESS RELEASE - Attorney General Phil Weiser leads coalition challenging illegal firing of FTC commissioners

Link to AMICUS BRIEF (PDF) - https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2025/04/2025.04.18-FTC-Commissioners-Amicus-Brief-As-Filed.pdf

[DENVERPOPS]

1. You don't need

The U.S. Supreme Court, Legislative Branch, or Judicial Branch in a Tyranny/Dictatorship............

Now that he is throwing his Trumphumping Voters under the bus, having outgrown their usefulness in future "elections", there are many other branches and agencies that are soon to follow........

[BigDemVoter]

2. And why are those fuckers writing, "Democrat" States?

Sounds like a repig wrote this.

[Karasu]

4. Yeah, that old dog whistle. They think they're more subtle than they actually are. There's a chance it's a simple

mistake, but in this day and age, I think people are wise to make that assumption.

[markodochartaigh]

16. In these two examples "Democrat" is actually more awkward

"...senior Democrat state legal officials—including attorney generals from..."

"...between the Trump administration and Democrat states over the president's power."

These are two instances in which I'm not inclined to give the writer/editor the benefit of the doubt.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I've actually seen some UK publications use it too

because apparently they want to use "Democratic" as an adjective vs a noun (regardless of whether the first letter is capitalized or not).

[MadameButterfly]

7. I've also seen Democrats and left leaning reporters use it

I wish they wouldn't help normalize this. They think we can't tell between Democratic meaning party vs democratic meaning the qualities of a democracy. But for 200 years we were able to tell by context and don't need to massacre the English language by using a noun for an adjective to clarify. There is an underlying resistance to the inference that the Democratic party is, well, democratic. It is too complementary. Well, yeah, that's how it got it's name. The insistence on not allowing the complement is insulting.

Sorry if this is obvious to all, but since some on our side use it....I wince every time I hear it. We don't complain about Republicans getting the benefit of the adjective in their name, even though they've gone fully fascist on us.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. I think you summed it up pretty well!

You have the odd occurrence of calling someone "a Democrat" (vs "a Democratic" ) and it just becomes one of those things.

[stillcool]

6. Newsweek

[BumRushDaShow]

10. It's not just them but other publications do it as well

It's whatever their stylebooks claim the should (or could) use.

[PSPS]

17. Newsweek has been reliably MAGA in its coverage for a long time. It was better 50 years ago.

[Crowman2009]

18. Frankly I would question their intellingence insuntingly and repeat that there are the letter i & c afterwards.

[Karasu]

3. They've already let him fire IGs and other officials the president has no fucking authority to fire, so the precedent is

already there to try something this outlandish.

Which is insane, because there are decades of valid reasons to remove some of these pathetic excuses for SC justices (particularly the ones appointed through highly dubious means and have demonstrated openly corrupt behavior), and I've always been frustrated by the fact that it's almost impossible to do in this system...but now we have someone who would attempt to sack the ones he simply doesn't like, just because he thinks he's a fucking king and they aren't kissing his ass 100% of the fucking time with their rulings.

[Iamscrewed]

8. Why

Why hasn't the orange menace been removed yet.?

[Wonder Why]

11. A long as it's the SCROTUS Six to be replaced by liberal Justices.

[DiverDave]

12. President Biden

Should have pushed, and I mean really pushed, for a larger SC.
But, once again we saw the Democratic party cowering in the corner.
I know it would have been a tough fight, but damnit, he should have tried.

[Polybius]

13. The votes just weren't there

With the filibuster, 60 votes were needed.

[DiverDave]

14. I know that.

But just putting it out there.
We might have shamed enough of the repukes to support it.
I know, I know...but a guy can dream, eh?

[Polybius]

15. Honestly, any Republican would be stupid to support it under a Democratic Administration

It would only hurt them, by adding 4 or so more Biden-appointed liberal Justices. But, one way to have done it would have been to eliminate the filibuster. That may have worked.