In Historic 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, 3 Justices Ruled To Be Morons

[Votto]

In Historic 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, 3 Justices Ruled To Be Morons​

U.S.·Jun 26, 2025 · BabylonBee.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ramifications were predicted to be felt for generations after today, as in a historic 6-3 Supreme Court decision, 3 justices were ruled to be morons.

The ruling came near the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's current term, leaving legal analysts around the country saying that the decision was sure to have a long-lasting impact on all future cases.

"This was a ruling that shifts the balance in the country," one expert said. "According to this 6-3 decision, three of the justices sitting on the Supreme Court are morons, with the three morons themselves providing the dissenting opinion."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, stating unequivocally that the dissenting justices were, in fact, idiots. "The evidence was clear," Thomas said. "Three of our colleagues are babbling fools. It is the opinion of this court that this be recognized and applied accordingly to all future cases brought before the court. Let the record also show that one of my dissenting colleagues got a pencil eraser stuck in her ear during closing arguments."

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, provided insight into the court's reasoning. "What does ‘dissent' mean?" Jackson asked. "How can the court conceivably rule that three of its justices are ‘morons' when there remains no consensus among the justices of what a woman is? Someone said Justice Kagan is an example of a woman, but she sure doesn't look like one to me. Also, what is an ‘opinion?'"

At publishing time, the court had issued an amended ruling on the case that would require all of the moron justices to pass a literacy test before joining in any future opinions.

 

[Kilroy2]

In Historic 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, 3 Justices Ruled To Be Morons​

U.S.·Jun 26, 2025 · BabylonBee.com

View attachment 1129348

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ramifications were predicted to be felt for generations after today, as in a historic 6-3 Supreme Court decision, 3 justices were ruled to be morons.

The ruling came near the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's current term, leaving legal analysts around the country saying that the decision was sure to have a long-lasting impact on all future cases.

"This was a ruling that shifts the balance in the country," one expert said. "According to this 6-3 decision, three of the justices sitting on the Supreme Court are morons, with the three morons themselves providing the dissenting opinion."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, stating unequivocally that the dissenting justices were, in fact, idiots. "The evidence was clear," Thomas said. "Three of our colleagues are babbling fools. It is the opinion of this court that this be recognized and applied accordingly to all future cases brought before the court. Let the record also show that one of my dissenting colleagues got a pencil eraser stuck in her ear during closing arguments."

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, provided insight into the court's reasoning. "What does ‘dissent' mean?" Jackson asked. "How can the court conceivably rule that three of its justices are ‘morons' when there remains no consensus among the justices of what a woman is? Someone said Justice Kagan is an example of a woman, but she sure doesn't look like one to me. Also, what is an ‘opinion?'"

At publishing time, the court had issued an amended ruling on the case that would require all of the moron justices to pass a literacy test before joining in any future opinions.

 

[Kilroy2]

Someone seems to be quoting a source about the following decision

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic decision on transgender care​

The 6-3 rulling

let stand a Tennessee law that banned puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking to transition to match their gender identity.

MSN

 

[TemplarKormac]

In a 6-3 ruling, the SCOTUS has granted a partial stay against lower courts that issue nationwide injunctions. Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the Majority. This is a huge victory for the Trump administration, freeing it to essentially enact its agenda as it sees fit within the bounds of constitutional law. It mostly stops lower courts from issuing blanket injunctions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Rawley]

In a 6-3 ruling, the SCOTUS has granted a partial stay against lower courts that issue nationwide injunctions. Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the Majority. This will be portrayed as a win for the Trump Administration.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

"portrayed" as a win? It's a huge win.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[TemplarKormac]

"portrayed" as a win? It's a huge win.

I had to get my mandatory two sentences in for the thread to count.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"portrayed" as a win? It's a huge win.

Edited for depth.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Hooray!!!
Here's how Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, wrote the dramatic opinion.

“(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the executive branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,” Barrett wrote for the majority. “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

• JUST IN: The Supreme Court backed President Donald Trump’s effort to curtail lower court orders that have hampered his agenda for months. However, it signaled that the president’s controversial plan to effectively end birthright citizenship may never be enforced.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-decisions-06-27-25

 

[Blaster]

The correct ruling by SCOTUS.

 

[Nostra]

About time these activist judges get put back in their place. They don’t have the power to make policy and run the Executive Branch.

SCOTUS rules on Trump's birthright citizenship order, testing lower court powers

Trump's challenge to universal injunctions in the Supreme Court could redefine judicial authority and influence the future of executive actions in the U.S.

www.foxnews.com

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Here's why this is a lasting win for presidential power​

From CNN's John Fritze
The court gave Trump a significant part of what he wanted: It limited the ability of plaintiffs to seek nationwide orders that temporarily halt the government from enforcing a policy. Those court orders are at the center of the president’s monthslong battle with the federal judiciary over his attempts to unilaterally redefine the nation’s immigration policies, slash government spending and take over independent agencies.

In that sense, the decision was a significant win for Trump at the high court and it could have lasting implications not only on the remainder of his administration but also for future presidents of both parties.

 

[Nostra]

Let the bitchslapping begin!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Huge win for Trump, and sanity!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And here's the nail, from Barrett.

 

[Rawley]

In a 6-3 ruling, the SCOTUS has granted a partial stay against lower courts that issue nationwide injunctions. Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the Majority. This is a huge victory for the Trump administration, freeing it to essentially enact its agenda as it sees fit within the bounds of constitutional law. It mostly stops lower courts from issuing blanket injunctions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

From the Affirmative Action Justice: "The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law"

LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

From the Affirmative Action Justice: "The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law"

LOL

Lol, you should see how Barrett excoriated Jackson in her opinion. Go on, you'll love it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The court did not answer the birthright citizenship question, unfortunately.

Also, thread up:

Post in thread 'In Historic 6-3 Supreme Court Decision, 3 Justices Ruled To Be Morons'

Jun 27, 2025

In a 6-3 ruling, the SCOTUS has granted a partial stay against lower courts that issue nationwide injunctions. Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the Majority. This is a huge victory for the Trump administration, freeing it to essentially enact its agenda as it sees fit within the bounds of constitutional law. It mostly stops lower courts from issuing blanket injunctions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf

• TemplarKormac

• 
• 
•