{"id":232,"date":"2026-06-29T20:39:41","date_gmt":"2026-06-29T20:39:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanhousingtransition.com\/?p=232"},"modified":"2026-06-29T20:39:41","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T20:39:41","slug":"if-the-supreme-court-is-in-the-tank-for-trump-it-sure-has-a-weird-way-of-showing-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanhousingtransition.com\/?p=232","title":{"rendered":"If the Supreme Court Is in the Tank for Trump, It Sure Has a Weird Way of Showing It"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome back to Forgotten Fact Checks. This week, we look at the misleading nature of the left\u2019s claims that President Trump effectively controls the Supreme Court, and we cover more media misses.<\/p>\n

Read more Supreme Court Rejects Trump Bid to Overturn $5 Million E. Jean Carroll Sex-Abuse Verdict<\/a><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court Demonstrates Its Independence from Trump<\/p>\n

The Nation <\/em>writer Elie Mystal has dubbed it \u201cTrump\u2019s Court.\u201d Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) claims it has been \u201ccaptured\u201d by conservative interests, and Slate<\/em>\u2019s Mark Joseph Stern has argued that it \u201ckeeps bailing Trump out.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the Supreme Court\u2019s decision on Monday not to hear an appeal by Trump of a jury verdict that awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million in damages after finding the president had sexually abused and defamed her, is evidence to the contrary.<\/p>\n

The Court did not explain its decision and none of the justices issued a written dissent.<\/p>\n

But in rejecting Trump\u2019s final avenue to avoid paying millions to Carroll, who successfully argued that Trump sexually abused her in the late 1990s and later defamed her when he denied her allegations when she came forward in 2019, the Court has offered just another piece of evidence that it hardly caters to the president\u2019s every whim.<\/p>\n

And in fact, the very same day the Court issued its ruling in the Carroll case, it dealt two more losses to Trump, including a ruling in favor of Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve\u2019s Board of Governors whom the president had tried to fire. In a 5\u20134 ruling, the Court determined Cook can remain in her job while the case works its way through the legal system.<\/p>\n

The Court also upheld a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days after it.<\/p>\n

And yet, progressives are quick to discount these rulings against the president. Every decision in the president\u2019s favor is used as evidence that the Court\u2019s conservative majority serves as a \u201crubber stamp\u201d for the president.<\/p>\n

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) celebrated the election-related decision in a post on X: \u201cDonald Trump\u2019s effort to rig the midterm elections was dealt a big blow by the Supreme Court.\u201d<\/p>\n

But as NR\u2019s Charles C. W. Cooke noted, just three weeks ago Jeffries accused the \u201cTrump Court\u201d of trying to \u201crig the midterm elections\u201d and claimed Democrats needed to pack the Court. Of course, Jeffries failed to acknowledge his prior comments after Monday\u2019s ruling, or to issue a mea culpa.<\/p>\n

Jeffries is hardly alone in his thinking. The Dispatch<\/em> rounded up a number of these claims just last month: \u201cThomas and Alito appear automatic in their support for Trump,\u201d Ruth Marcus wrote for the Washington Post <\/em>in one example, while Jay Willis at Balls and Strikes<\/em> in 2024 described Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch as \u201cthree Republican-appointed reactionaries eager to reshape American society in the graven image of Roger Ailes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Mystal has dismissed the conservative justices as \u201cRepublican operatives with lifetime appointments,\u201d while Vox <\/em>published an article last year describing \u201cThe overwhelming evidence that the Supreme Court is on Donald Trump\u2019s team.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent last year saying, \u201cThis Administration always wins.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more Bible Passages Will Soon Be Required Reading for Millions of Texas Students<\/a><\/p>\n

Just two months ago, the Daily Beast <\/em>published an article outlining \u201cWhy This Supreme Court Justice Won\u2019t Say No to Trump.\u201d<\/p>\n

The article, written by breaking news reporter Annabella Rosciglione, encapsulates a larger sentiment on the left, that Justice Alito and his fellow conservatives are all in for Trump.<\/p>\n

And yet Monday\u2019s rulings are not the first time the Court has ruled against the president.<\/p>\n

Most notably, the Court declined to hear lawsuits from Trump and his allies seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including Texas v. Pennsylvania <\/em>(2020), which sought to invalidate electoral votes in four battleground states.<\/p>\n

Also in 2020, the Court ruled 7\u20132 that Trump did not enjoy absolute immunity from a state criminal subpoena as a sitting president, allowing the Manhattan district attorney to obtain Trump\u2019s financial records.<\/p>\n

But to Trump\u2019s liberal opponents, every ruling against him is just a fluke in a system otherwise designed to endorse his every political move.<\/p>\n

Headline Fail of the Week<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/em> is committed to respecting the preferred pronouns of transgender-identifying individuals, even those who stand accused of trying to assassinate a Supreme Court justice.<\/p>\n

\u201cShe got eight years for plotting to kill Justice Kavanaugh. Prosecutors want more,\u201d reads a recent Post<\/em> report, referring to would-be assassin Nicholas Roske.<\/p>\n

The Post <\/em>refers to man behind the foiled attack as \u201cSophie Roske\u201d and uses \u201cshe\/her\u201d pronouns for Roske throughout the story.<\/p>\n

It isn\u2019t until paragraph 26, as Newsbusters<\/em> first noted, that the outlet tells readers about Roske\u2019s real sex. \u201cRoske was named Nicholas Roske at birth and raised as a boy in a Southern California family active in a large Evangelical church.\u201d<\/p>\n

While federal prosecutors initially sought a 30-year sentence for Roske in connection with the plot, Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, only sentenced Roske to eight years in prison, leading prosecutors to appeal the sentencing.<\/p>\n

Roske\u2019s apparent gender confusion seemed to encourage Boardman to give him a lighter sentence. The article explains, \u201cBoardman said that in weighing how long to sentence Roske, she factored in that Roske could face additional hardships in federal custody owing to assignment to a male prison and uncertainty about access to hormone treatment . . .\u201d and that Roske was \u201cin the throes of a mental health crisis\u201d on the night he was arrested outside Kavanaugh\u2019s home.<\/p>\n

Read more John Bolton Pleads Guilty to Mishandling Classified Information, Faces Five-Year Prison Sentence<\/a><\/p>\n

Media Misses<\/p>\n