Supreme Court hands Trump major win, limits judges’ ability to block birthright citizenship order nationwide
Just a moment...
You're viewing a single thread.
Funny how SCOTUS had no problems whatsoever with nationwide injunctions when Biden was president…
Well that's the thing with SCOTUS. You have to ask them to have an opinion on something. They probably wouldn't have had a problem with national injunctions under Biden if that authority had been challenged in court. And then we would have already had that precedent from literally the same judges for to rely on now.
If something is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional. I don't understand why they're creating more unnecessary work so now party A complains, courts say ok it's not right, but now party B has to go through the same process, etc etc etc... so now we have to have essentially 50 individual cases to go over the same thing when each state encounters this issue unless they can manage to create a class lawsuit out of it.
To my cynical mind it seems like excessive delay on otherwise straightforward cases was the intended outcome.
That is the intent, to make it harder for any challenges to Republican fascism. If a case comes up that would benefit them, then they will do it as a exception, becsuse they are hypocrites.
Basically they have ruled that rights only count in the scope they want, and by default it is limited. Fascist laws and executive orders can be enforced nationwide and only challenged locally.
Unless I'm getting my right wing "shadowy organizations" mixed up, it was the now well known heritage foundation that created the short list of judges for Republicans to choose from for something like the last 40 years, so these are all their judges, and looking at project 2025 we know what the heritage foundation wants for the country...
It's not rainbows and ponies that's for sure.
Our bureaucracy was already over taxed. This grinds much of it to a halt. Which is all they need
This goes all the way back to Lincoln who’s primary reasoning for deciding to start a civil war was we couldn’t let states decide if they would or would not be slave states, slavery was wrong this isn’t an option - now “slavery” has a bigger and more nuisanced meaning but I essentially his decision to disallow states to choose on such important subjects, to not be united is being removed
They also hope to commit “paper terrorism” like the sovereign citizen movement, which is weirdly similar to the Moldbug/Peter Thiel plans, to choke out the US justice system with paper work and grind it to a halt while maintaining plausible deniability on their end
It's exactly what they did by killing chevron deference. Instead of experts in a given field, working in a relevant department, clarifying how a given vague rule should be applied in individual cases, now each case has to go to the courts so a judge can decide whether XYZ regulation should apply in areas they have zero knowledge of.
A huge win for corporate interests as delay delay delay helps them continue to violate vague rules.
If something is unconstitutional then it’s unconstitutional.
Correct. But, perhaps sadly, I'm reminded of the scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when Will is complaining about rules and Jack says the only rules that matter are what a man can do and what a man can't do. The Constitution only matters if we have enough people willing and able to enforce it. And if the Trump administrations have taught us anything, it's that we need every fucking assumption to be litigated.
Several of biden's nationally injuncted cases made it to the supreme Court, specifically the cases about student debt.
I don't recall the department of Justice questioning the national injunctions legality at that time though, tbf.
I don’t recall the department of Justice questioning the national injunctions legality at that time though, tbf.
That's all this ruling is about, whether a circuit court can issue a national injunction. I'm assuming that this specific question hasn't been asked to the SCOTUS before (because it's a stupid question that shouldn't have even been entertained). The EO is still enjoined in the jurisdiction of the circuit courts where a challenge to the EO has produced an injunction. So the EO itself is still going through the courts.
Prescient is irrelevant, Row v Wade
I know. But it is different overturning a 70 year old precedent set by judges who have all since died, versus overturning your own precedent set <5 years ago with all of the concurring judges still on the bench.
I feel like the current group would be able to lower the bar on that one too.