The latest ruling from the USA Supreme Court was described by Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the three dissenting justices, as “profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate”. She also calls the ruling an “existential threat to the rule of law”. Another dissenter Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” The court has dramatically expanded the rights of the president to nullify constitutional provisions at will.
Most thoughts are covered in an amended previous post below. To recap – on the SCOTUS chart tr Neptune last year and tr Saturn this year into early 2026 plus Solar Arc Uranus all conjunct Venus, the yod focal point planet, which does suggest a change of direction, causing emotional and societal upset. Where the significant pressure for a complete revamp and rethink will come is around the next election and the one beyond in 2032 as first tr Uranus will square the SCOTUS Uranus, SA Saturn will conjunct the North Node and square the Sun; and by 2032 tr Pluto will conjunct the Sun.
What I missed last time round was the Progressed Mars conjunct the North Node and square the Sun late 2026 into 2027 which suggests continued aggravation and maybe setbacks for SCOTUS. Progressed Mars to the Sun usually produces a ‘collision’ type event.
The SCOTUS/USA relationship chart is showing unease with tr Neptune square the composite Saturn from mid this June (ie. when this ruling came down) and on into 2026 – with hints of a tussle for the upper hand between public opinion and the Justices running till the end of Trump’s term.
Trump’s relationship chart with SCOTUS is chained-together but not exactly harmonious with a composite Pluto, Saturn, Venus, Algol square Uranus – destructive and damaging with underlying bitter resentment. Arguments will flare in 2026/27.
From previous Post July 2024, amended.
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling (in 2024) allowing presidents to be unrestricted by legal niceties has been described by the media as “unconscionable” and “bad beyond wildest imaginings”. With an expert on judicial ethics calling SCOTUS “an organization more political than legal.” And saying flatly that the Supreme Court now has a “potential legitimacy problem.” “The traditional notion that we will accept the results of the court whether we agree with it or not … is decreasingly the case.”
But despite public alarm at the state of affairs within SCOTUS with additional concerns about the financial questionmarks over Thomas and at least two justices with blatantly pro-Trump family connections, there seems little possibility of change unless Democrats gain control of both chambers in the November election and retain the White House. Plus whether any retirements from the court lead to a change in the 6-3 conservative-liberal split in coming years.
The SCOTUS chart, 2 February 1790, looks exuberant at the moment with tr Uranus square the Mars Jupiter conjunction. Though with discontent and disappointment lurking as tr Neptune are conjunct the Venus (on the focal point of a yod to Neptune sextile Mars Jupiter, so doubly important) from this October to early March 2025. Followed by tr Saturn square the focal point Venus the first half of October this year and second half of January 2026. These two influences could suggest upsets within SCOTUS and a veering away from goals of social harmony.
Solar Arc Uranus then proceeds to conjunct the focal point Venus by 2027 which indicates more upsets and sharp changes of direction not always in line with popular opinion. Indeed there may be more internal arguments emerging as well. With a downbeat 2029 as SA Saturn is square Sun.
My sense from having scanned various charts is that this coming presidential term will be a stormy one vis a vis the Supreme Court with their comeuppance arriving with the next presidency from 2029 onwards. The 2025 Inauguration chart has Mercury in the legal 9th opposition Mars for a term of arguments about justice. The 2029 Inauguration has Venus, North Node and Mercury in the 9th square Jupiter – with perhaps a hope of putting improvements in place.
The relationship chart between SCOTUS and the USA hints at a tussle for the upper hand this year and next from tr Pluto opposition the composite Jupiter; with even greater uncertainty and concern from 2026 onwards for three years with tr Saturn Neptune in Aries square the composite Saturn and then the Uranus.
John Roberts, heretofore deemed sensible and reasonable, but now seeing his halo dim, is having a peculiarly difficult 2027 with a blocked SA Pluto square his Sun, at the same time as tr Pluto starts to conjunct his Sun in 2027/28. And worse in 2028 with a panicky-failure tr Neptune conjunct his Mars into 2029.
In no particular order:
Brett Kavanaugh, wobbling this year; running into scandals from over confidence in 2027 to 2029.
Amy Barrett, blocked in 2025 from SA Sun opposition her Pluto; with a downbeat 2026 and maximum pressure in 2027/28 from tr Pluto conjunct her Sun.
Clarence Thomas, an angry collision in 2026 and a longish slide from 2026 to 2028 courtesy of tr Neptune Saturn square his Sun, Mercury, Venus in Cancer.
Samuel Alito, excitable and nerve-stretched this year into 2025 with tr Neptune opposition his Mars; erupting in high tension in 2025 with SA Uranus conjunct his Saturn; panicked in 2026/27 as Neptune collides with Uranus; meltdown in 2027.
Sonia Sotomayor, under huge pressure with tr Pluto square her Saturn in Scorpio in 2024/25; sagging badly 2026/28 with tr Saturn Neptune square her Mars and her Sun.
Neil Gorsuch, into a nerve-shredding 2026/27 courtesy of Uranus Neptune cross overs and worse in 2027 with his SA Uranus conjunct his Mars.
Elena Kagan, He Taurus Sun opposition Neptune are getting the full brunt of a hit from Solar Arc Pluto in 2026/27; as the same time as tr Pluto is grinding its way in hard aspect across both in 2027/28. She looks rattled at the moment by a major setback.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, upset at the moment; high tensions in 2025; logjammed in 2026; ready to blow a fuse in 2027 and maybe just maybe feeling upbeat by 2028.
“It is certain, in any case, that ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.” James Baldwin.
“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” Montesquieu
“Justice will overtake fabricators of lies and false witnesses.” Heraclitus
“If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us.” Francis Bacon
“I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” George Washington
“The due administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government, I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of the country, and to the stability of its political system.” George Washington
In today’s Wall Street Journal:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/supreme-court-term-elena-kagan-unanimous-rulings-d1a67bc7?mod=trending_now_opn_2
@AC and @Unmystic Mom, your assertions about interpretation of the federal law by the courts reflect a pretty simplistic view of the way things have worked in the U.S. historically and continue to work in the present day, including with this highly partisan and political court. The original 1789 law (one of the first laws passed by Congress after the Constitution was, itself, adopted in 1789–a law not coincidentally voted in by the Constitution’s original authors, so hardly a case of “not referring in any way” to the founding document) actually provided broader leeway for federal court authority than SCOTUS suggests here.
Whatever one’s views about judicial overreach may be, nationwide injunctions have been used by courts of various political stripes to ensure that Americans across judicial circuits have the same rights and protections vis-a-vis critical issues; so that a jurisdiction in Texas, for instance, can’t prematurely deprive its people of the same rights still being litigated in Massachusetts while the constitutional issue has yet to be decided. “Constitutional supremacy” is a foundational principle of our legal system, as is “equal protection under the law,” and crossing state or district lines doesn’t change that. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this; it’s basic civics.
The suggestion that all this is merely a matter of legal interpretation, rather than a political decision, bespeaks an extreme degree of naivete. I’ll just leave you with the observation that the Biden administration asked repeatedly for the Court to rein in nationwide injunctions regarding reproductive healthcare and rights, and was rebuffed at every turn by a majority with a well-known religious and political position in favor of limiting those rights. It is only now, in a case that is pro-imperial presidency (on the dictatorship continuum, in other words), and potentially anti-immigrant, that the self-same court suddenly discovers a need to limit universal injunctions. The hypocrisy and contempt for the rights of ordinary people are blatant.
I’m not sure how this relates to astrology, except that it perhaps points to mass delusion on the part of many and a thirst for power among the already powerful few. Uranian and Plutonian influences, perhaps?
Is there anything in the astrology that suggests the abolition of the presidency and the adoption of a parliamentary system. The seer Baba Vanga implied that Obama would be the last president.
Even parliamentary republics have a president (see Ireland, Italy, Israel, Germany, etc). Unless you are suggesting that the US will become a monarchy, probably under the same crown as Canada and Australia, etc.
Baba Vanga was not wrong. After Obama, hasn’t the US become a de facto dictatorship?
The UK is called a republic in the guise of a monarchy. The Roman Empire didn’t have a formal emperor for its first few decades of existence, Augustus and his immediate successors formally merely being “princeps”/first citizen (for more information, google “the Principate” and “the Dominate”). And the Soviet Union was formally a republic like any other, just that one citizen, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, had more (informal) authority than others.
So the de facto operation of the government of a country can be very different from its formal power structure.
Maybe this is the end of the Republic and the inauguration of the American Empire, rather like the events in ancient Rome under Julius and Augustus Caesar, with the plebians acting as Trump’s ‘base’
Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are early Aquarians with a Pluto transit to their Sun coming up. The Court will also epxerience a Pluto return itself. Anyone expecting this will bring improvements shoiuld remember the recent US Pluto retunr brought us Trump. I am not convinced anything good will come out of the 2028 election since I am not convinced it will happen. All those Pluto transits could mean that the Suprme Court would approve dictatorship.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Opinion of the Court:
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
One wonders if Justice Jackson might be out of her depth.
@PC quite the opposite; Coney Barrett is an originalist, intent on jamming current law into a framework constructed out of a disingenuous, fantasy version of the facts on the ground when the Constitution was written—so, for example, rules regarding firearms that were written with muskets in mind are feigned to pertain to modern machine guns and flamethrowers. If anyone is out of their depth, it’s Coney Barrett and the other originalists such as Alito and Thomas, with their willful inversions of precedent and their simpleminded misreadings of history.
The argument is not referring in any way to the constitution but an act of 1789.This primer explains the whole situation. It is up to congress to change the legislation but no congress ever will because judge shopping is now a political pastime. https://theconversation.com/what-the-supreme-court-ruling-against-universal-injunctions-means-for-court-challenges-to-presidential-actions-260040
In that case, I applaud them.
The role of the justices and of judges in general is to rule on what the law is, not what the law should be. If they are sticking to the law as it is, more power to them.
It is the job of the political branches, Congress and the president, to change the law to fit the times, not the judges.
Abortion is the best example of this. Look at how Ireland did it. They formally amended the constitution and held a national referendum and had abortion written into the text of the constitution to protect it, unlike the US, which depended on the Supreme Court finding it in the “penumbra of the constitution”, whatever that means.
It is the role of the political branches to change the law and the role of the judges to interpret the law as it is. It is because the political branches in the US have become so risk-averse in actually doing their job that that role has moved to the judiciary and why judicial appointments have become so politicised.
It is deeply ironic that the US judiciary has become effectively the House of Lords of the United States; lifetime tenure with veto power over legislation, and in SCOTUS’s case, judgments that can’t be overturned.
The Constitution can be amended but not by a person or group acting as a despot. It must be agreeable to a supermajority of the Congress or a supermajority of the states. The President and the Court do not get a say.
The thing I think that is interesting about America is it has a Gemini Uranus and Gemini Mars. Our constitution comes with its own enforcement mechanism. Gemini Uranus. The Constitution. Writing liberty. The neighborhood rebellion. The other Gemini is the Gemini Mars. The neighborhood weapons. America’s twins.
1A. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly 2A. Citizens can have arms. Ie Tell everyone you are angry and your liberty has been threatened. Get together as a group. Get your guns. 3A You don’t have to house soldiers. 4A Nobody can take your papers, things or come in your house without a warrant with cause. 5A Grand Jurys to bring someone to trial. 6A Fast trials at home. 7A Over $20, you have a right to a jury trial… no excessive bail, no cruel punishment, you get counsel to help defend you…if we didn’t get all your rights, your rights aren’t limited by this document…and your state matters too…the courts are restricted… 12A ok now that we got that straight let’s form a government…
The first eleven amendments are aimed at making sure Americans can challenge the government for anything they think up.
The Constitution is a recipe for rebellion. You have expansive rights and limited exposure to punishments. It has far more power than the court which can’t enforce its own orders.
They were not thinking about the weapons they were thinking about protecting liberty. The second amendment was intended for the American citizenry to be equipped and trained to be the military force of the entire nation and strong enough to repel an American army itself. Hamilton in Federalist 29 said specifically the citizens needed to be “little if at all inferior to them in discipline or use of arms.” Them being a regular American military. I’ve put the full quote below.
I haven’t seen an original source that suggests that any founder didn’t want all Americans to be drafted into the militia similiar to the modern Swiss model. George Washington called for all citizens between 18 and 50 to be called into regular drilled service and provided weapons from the government which were to be inspected a couple times a year to make sure the citizen had kept it in good working order and knew what to do with it. Hamilton suggested that the youth be encouraged or forcibly convinced to be patriotic and take pride in military parade to encourage them to defend the nation and its liberties.
“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well digested plan should as soon as possible be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan it will be possible to have an excellent body of well trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” Federalist 29 Alexander Hamiliton
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency…” George Washington
Marjorie,
Thank you much for this update, even if very scary for us here in US.
They say one cause of the civil war of 1865 was the Supreme Court being so out of alignment with the general populous.
I’m guessing that the improvements that could occur after 2029 would involve packing the court with more justices, and possibly instituting term limits.
Back in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt threw around the possibility that he would add more justices to the Supreme Court because they kept ruling against many of his policies that eventually became the New Deal. They backed off, so he never implemented it.
Having said that, I think the time has come for the Democrats to increase the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices. After all, we have 13 federal judicial districts, so why not 13 Supreme Court Justices? And forget about MAGA whining. The Republicans basically stole 2 seats from Democrats, so a reckoning needs to happen so that Republicans learn that rules must apply to everyone or one day they must contend with the fact that Democrats (or another party) are done playing nice to those who won’t be nice back.
I feel an expansion of the court is going to be the logical outcome to this if Democrats get a super majority (assuming they break out of their self-imposed restraint). The Supreme Court as we know it is setting up its own demise by giving Trump so much power. Because Trump won’t be President forever. And Republicans will deeply regret their actions if a non-restrained Democrat takes power and starts consolidating that power by adding seats to the Supreme Court and possibly abolishing the Electoral College.
The rage is growing. Now Trump wants to get rid of citizens who were not born in this country. Where will that leave his wife, I wonder?
People don’t trust the Supreme Court, so the reckoning and restructuring is in the cards. I wonder what the stars will show as to when this occurs.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/06/28/justice-kagans-own-words-just-exposed-the-lefts-hypocrisy-on-nationwide-injunctions-n4941256
………Well, Justice Kagan, who dissented in this case, was singing a very different tune just a couple of years ago. Back in 2022, when President Biden was in the White House and conservatives were the ones seeking relief from his executive orders, Kagan was openly skeptical of nationwide injunctions.
“This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process,” she said.
That’s not some out-of-context paraphrase—it’s her own words, on the record.
Fast forward to 2025, and suddenly Kagan’s skepticism has evaporated. Now that Donald Trump is back in the Oval Office, she’s all-in for the same judicial overreach she once panned. It just goes to show you who the real partisans on the court are. They aren’t adhering to any particular judicial philosophy or the Constitution, they care only about whether a particular ruling hurts or benefits the Democratic Party…………>
The Court is political, however in this case a right clearly defined in the Constitution was denied by executive order, so the injuctions (3 all together) made sense. It wasn’t just one judge. The SCOTUS didn’t even address the issue of birthright citizenship. All presidents in the 21st century, Republicans. Or Dem. Have c/o of this. Sorry for no astrology- needed for context.
pjmedia. Pajamas Media? Their Wikipedia page is . . . enlightening.
Thank you, Lisa. It’s always good to be reminded to check the source of news items. I too am always interested too, in who finances media.
Wonderful quotes!
Thank you, Marjorie.