Five Imminent Supreme Court Rulings That Could Change America (Your Predictions?)

[Rogue AI]

I can see a successful sweep.

The Court is in no position to create economic chaos, they'll allow the tariffs.

Every single group granted citizenship since the 14th was ratified was done through an Act of Congress. This will be no different. Of course they will simply say effective immediately without challenges to existing citizenship claims. The 14th specifically places the powers within in Congress' purview. Failure to have acted does not create citizenship.

The Constitution only recognizes three branches of government. Independent isn't one of them. Can't see any way around that.

Setting physical limits is common sense. The 'not a suicide pact' bit applies here.

The Constitution does not specify a method of voting or a date. Congress established the date, anything received after should not be allowed.

That's my take on it.

 

[eagle7-31]

I can see a successful sweep.

The Court is in no position to create economic chaos, they'll allow the tariffs.

Every single group granted citizenship since the 14th was ratified was done through an Act of Congress. This will be no different. Of course they will simply say effective immediately without challenges to existing citizenship claims. The 14th specifically places the powers within in Congress' purview. Failure to have acted does not create citizenship.

The Constitution only recognizes three branches of government. Independent isn't one of them. Can't see any way around that.

Setting physical limits is common sense. The 'not a suicide pact' bit applies here.

The Constitution does not specify a method of voting or a date. Congress established the date, anything received after should not be allowed.

That's my take on it.

If memory serves Congress passed GATT in the late 1990's and Clinton signed it. That gives the US power to use tariff's. So Congress already paved the way so to speak.

 

[citygator]

If memory serves Congress passed GATT in the late 1990's and Clinton signed it. That gives the US power to use tariff's. So Congress already paved the way so to speak.

They paved the way for temporary emergency actions. Not broad made up reason tariffs. That is what is in dispute. He is doing things NOT authorized by Congress.

 

[Rogue AI]

They paved the way for temporary emergency actions. Not broad made up reason tariffs. That is what is in dispute. He is doing things NOT authorized by Congress.

How well is 'emergency' defined? That is one question. More importantly the Court is a practical institution, creating chaos is not in their interests nor their purview. This is a matter between the Executive and Legislature. Congress already has a remedy, the courts are not needed here.

 

[citygator]

How well is 'emergency' defined? That is one question. More importantly the Court is a practical institution, creating chaos is not in their interests nor their purview. This is a matter between the Executive and Legislature. Congress already has a remedy, the courts are not needed here.

If the court doesnt think the law specifies the action clearly it will invalidate the law and he will lose all tariff powers.

 

[TNHarley]

Lose 1, win 4

Birthright citizenship probably won't get through the SC.

If they were originalists it would. And originalists is what they are supposed to be.

 

[martybegan]

If they were originalists it would. And originalists is what they are supposed to be.

An originalist would say congress has to figure it out.

 

[TNHarley]

An originalist would say congress has to figure it out.

I dont agree.

 

[martybegan]

I dont agree.

I'm on the fence myself on it. To me it can't be just citizens, because the term "under the jurisdiction thereof" is used, not citizens.

So, congress could define that, excluding illegals as well as diplomats (already excluded) and set the bar to having a green card.

To me the only way to completely fix it is an amendment.

 

[citygator]

I'm on the fence myself on it. To me it can't be just citizens, because the term "under the jurisdiction thereof" is used, not citizens.

So, congress could define that, excluding illegals as well as diplomats (already excluded) and set the bar to having a green card.

To me the only way to completely fix it is an amendment.

Agree. As written there is nothing they can do. You'll have to have a constitutional amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Agree. As written there is nothing they can do. You'll have to have a constitutional amendment.

I think a properly worded congressional law would pass muster, as there is already an acceptable exclusion for people here as diplomats.

We just need to extend that to tourists and illegals.

 

[Rogue AI]

If the court doesnt think the law specifies the action clearly it will invalidate the law and he will lose all tariff powers.

That's your opinion. You asked for others and I gave mine.

 

[Delldude]

Tea leaves..

 

[berg80]

3. Agency Independence (Lisa Cook firing)

Fed Governor Lisa Cook seems safe from Trump firing after Supreme Court arguments​

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned a Trump administration lawyer on Wednesday that arguments President Donald Trump can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook without judicial review “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

Kavanaugh’s comment to Solicitor General D. John Sauer was one of many skeptical questions to Sauer by the court’s justices as they heard arguments on whether Cook should be allowed to remain in office as she challenges in lower courts Trump’s attempt to fire her for uncharged allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.

“The real question is to what extent we believe the public is harmed to allow Ms. Cook to remain in post during the pendency of this case?” asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, referring to Cook’s lawsuit challenging her removal, which remains pending in a federal district court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/21/supreme-court-trump-fed-lisa-cook-powell.html

The would be tyrant's quest for power over the removal of Fed governors appears to have failed.

 

[Darlo kittu]

You are a bookmakers dream. Whatever you bet on. Do the opposite and win

You make AOC look like a MENSA member

 

[Failzero]

There are five important Supreme Court cases that were delayed until spring for a ruling. There is a history of SCOTUS not making big rulings against a newly elected President but waiting until spring to decide the cases but that doesn't necessarily mean losses for Trump.

How do you think these five go for Trump?

1. Tariffs
2. Birthright citizenship
3. Agency Independence (Lisa Cook firing)
4. Asylum Metering (physically keeping asylum applicants out)
5. Mail-in Ballot Legitimacy (postmarked but not arrived)

Five imminent supreme court rulings that could change America

From birthright citizenship to potential changes in election voting procedures, the cases cover vast legislative ground.

www.newsweek.com

I predict Trump will:

1. Lose 3-6
2. Lose 3-6
3. Lose 4-5
4. Win 6-3
5. Win 5-4

# 1 Win 5-4

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

1. Presidents have imposed tariffs before Trump, as recently as Biden. So, the precedent is already set. M

This guy cites precedent as validating an action he likes… then proceeds to say Birthright Cirizenship precedent must be ignored.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I noticed that you did not mention the "trans" boys ruining girls sports case. I predict 8 to 1 in favor of science and normal people.

1. Tariffs - Win for Trump. Congress gave the president power over tariffs.
2. Birthright citizenship - Loss for Trump. The line has to be drawn somewhere and being born here has worked for a while.
3. Agency Independence (Lisa Cook firing) - Win for Trump. The executive agencies are controlled by the executive.
4. Asylum Metering (physically keeping asylum applicants out) - Win for Trump. Why would he ever lose that?
5. Mail-in Ballot Legitimacy (postmarked but not arrived) - Don't know the details, so don't know.

 

[BluesLegend]

I can't wait until the 3 liberal skanks start crying and bitching again.

 

[BluesLegend]

I noticed that you did not mention the "trans" boys ruining girls sports case. I predict 8 to 1 in favor of science and normal people.

2. Birthright citizenship - Loss for Trump. The line has to be drawn somewhere and being born here has worked for a while.

That's NEVER been the law. There are citizenship laws tied to this going all the way back to the 1700's. As is typical it's Democrats bastardizing something into what it never was or intended to be.

It's 1000% ridiculous that foreign POS can sneak into our country ILLEGALLY, pop out a kid then claim rights after making a complete mockery of our immigration laws.