dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

New York Times uses inflammatory headlines describing some of today's SCOTUS results.

'In one blurb', the NYT said:

.

"Live Updates: Supreme CourtExpandsPresidential Power Over Regulators, but Not the Fed

"In twin rulings, the justices said President Trump could fire independent regulators for any reason but explicitly affirmed the Fed’s independence and said its leaders could not be fired at will."

=The deliberate use of the word "expands" to describe how existing law is to be applied (and how the lower courts have improperly applied it), is purposeful and deceitful. Not that when the NYT got the interpretation they preferred on the other of the "twin" rulings, they used the word "affirmed," not "constricted" or "restricted" as would have appropriated if they were using the same inflammatory language in both directions. The Supreme Court's job is to apply existing law, not expand or restrict it or create law out of thin air. They are not perfect, but the NYT is imperfect in its reporting and headlines consistently and unapologetically.

Similarly, in the second blurb, the NYT again said:

"Here’s the latest on the rulings.

"The Supreme Courtexpanded presidential poweron Mondayby affirming President Trump’s ability to fire most independent regulators, though the justices explicitly affirmed the Federal Reserve’s independence and said its leaders could not be dismissed at will.

"The court’s 6-to-3 ruling to broadly allow the firing of federal regulators, with the three liberal justices dissenting, isa significant shift in power from Congress to the presidentthat could usher in adrastic change to the government’s structure by giving the president more direct control over independent agencies."

Again, how is "affirming" (the correct word used here), also "expand[ing]"? Both were used in the same sentence by the failing NYT. If true to its mandate, SCOTUS only has the power to enforce existing law, not to create new law.

___

Sauce: Both snapshots are from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/29/us/trump-supreme-court-presidential-power

BO: Many images and memes that do not expand (all at the moment) are illegible (for this anon).

>>24771710

>YOU ARE STUPID

Nothing responding Anon posted addresses or contradicts the truth of the OP:

NYT is biased and misleading, purposefully, in its reporting and headlines (and, in this case, inflammatory, given how hot people are and Drudge even posts an accompanying inflammatory central pic of POTUS as KING - along with NYT's false language: "SCOTUSexpandsPresidential power" (when it did not, it put the lower courts in check); and

and

SCOTUS' mandate IS to apply existing law, not to constrict it nor expand it. OP notes SCOTUS is not perfect. OP simply stated that that was, and it is, SCOTUS' official mandate.

Anonymous ID: 760636 June 29, 2026, 12:34 p.m. No.24771799 🗄️.is 🔗kun >>1802

>>24771168

>hereditaments

Apropos of nothing, likely: there is a misspelling / scanning error in the middle of that one, too:

"alsolieir-looms, and certain furniture which, by custom, may descend to the heir together with the land…"

"The exact quote you are referencing comes from the classic legal definition of a hereditament found in historic texts like Black's Law Dictionary and Blackstone's Commentaries.

"The phrase contains a minor optical character recognition (OCR) typo from old digitized text scans: "alsolieir-looms" is a misread of the words "also heir-looms".

"The complete, corrected legal passage defines a hereditament as: "Things capable of being inherited, be it corporeal or incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed, and including not only lands and everything thereon, but also heir-looms, and certain furniture which, by custom, may descend to the heir together with the land."

"The Legal Meaning of the Quote

"In old English common law, personal property (chattels) normally went to the executor of a will to pay off debts, rather than directly to the heir.

"However, heirlooms were a rare legal exception:

"The Etymology of "Loom":

"In old English and Saxon, the word "loom" originally meant a tool, implement, or a "limb/member" of an estate. It did not exclusively refer to a fabric-weaving machine.

"Annexed to the Land:

"An heirloom was any piece of personal property—such as family portraits, an ancestor's coat of armor, title deeds, or heavy custom furniture—that by local custom was so closely tied to a mansion house or estate that it could not be separated from it.

"Inheritance Rules: Because these items were legally tied to the real estate, they passed automatically to the person inheriting the land, bypassing the executor entirely. The owner could sell them during their lifetime, but they could not legally bequeath them away from the estate in a will.

"Modern Status

"In modern property law, this strict legal category of "heirlooms descending with land" is virtually obsolete. Today, the word "heirloom" has shifted to its popular, secondary meaning: any sentimental or valuable family possession passed down through generations, which is managed purely through standard wills, trusts, and estate planning."

Source: AI

>>24771707

>New York Times uses inflammatory headlines describing some of today's SCOTUS results.

Oh well, Never Mind.

POTUS characterizes it the same way!

_______

Anonymous 06/29/26 (Mon) 11:41:5649c676 (12) No. >>24771641

Donald J. Trump / @realDonaldTrump 06/29/2026 14:40:01

Truth Social: 116834854601794123

"Today’s Historic Slaughter Decision by the Supreme Court is the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116834854601794123