RobDownSouth
Resist!
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,404
Tomorrow, May 14th 2025, is shaping up to be a pivotal day in American democracy: the Supreme Court will hear highly technical arguments about whether one single Federal judge has the authority to declare something (a law, statute, "executive order", etc) Unconstitutional AND issue a nationwide junction prohibiting enforcement of said law.
It didn't always used to be this way. But that was before we had a Negro president.
When Obamacare became law of the land, conservatives were certain that this was the end of the world as we know it. So they came up with a novel legal theory that one redneck ultrafascist judge had the authority to overrule Congress and the Executive branch by judicial fiats known as "nationwide injunctions".
The Supreme Court ultimately shut that bullshit down, but the precedent was set: Republicans can judge-shop "Republican friendly" legal venues (Texas and/or Louisiana...coincidentally the home of two major ICE concentration camps, but I digress) and Democrats in turn seek justice in "Democrat friendly" Northern District Court of California.
After no less than TEN judges in SIX states immediately found Orange Julius Caesar™'s foolish "Birthright Citizenship revocation" executive order patently unConsitutional (which it is, so sorry Vettebigot), the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has finally opted to hear arguments limiting "nationwide injunctions".
This is uncharted territory for the court system. There's been a loosy-goosy "don't overdo it" vibe about nationwide injunctions, but Trump has successfully pushed the edges of what is and is not legally acceptable that Papa Supreme has to establish some sort of limit for its rambunctious children.
The MAGA folks picked the most odious case they could find to press their argument that "the President is a King, if you squint really really hard": Trump's ridiculous executive fiat revoking citizenship of non-white people who were born on American soil, which courts had implied was the law of the land since 1898. The
The Supreme Court has to do something, but honestly, what they decide (strict limits, higher standard of evidence, or no limits for Republican presidents whatsoever) is completely up in the air.
"Justice" Neil Gorsuch has previously given lectures on how "one court issuing national injunctions is not a good way to do business", so one can surmise he's going to write the "no federal judge EVER" part of any decision, but there are eight other Justices to deal with.
One gets the impression that history will be judging Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure in part for cases like this held tomorrow.
At stake is whether a President can overrule a Constitutional amendment (in this case, the 14th amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship) by royal proclamation.
Final thought: Imagine what would happen if a Democratic president were to declare the 2nd amendment void by executive order!
It didn't always used to be this way. But that was before we had a Negro president.
When Obamacare became law of the land, conservatives were certain that this was the end of the world as we know it. So they came up with a novel legal theory that one redneck ultrafascist judge had the authority to overrule Congress and the Executive branch by judicial fiats known as "nationwide injunctions".
The Supreme Court ultimately shut that bullshit down, but the precedent was set: Republicans can judge-shop "Republican friendly" legal venues (Texas and/or Louisiana...coincidentally the home of two major ICE concentration camps, but I digress) and Democrats in turn seek justice in "Democrat friendly" Northern District Court of California.
After no less than TEN judges in SIX states immediately found Orange Julius Caesar™'s foolish "Birthright Citizenship revocation" executive order patently unConsitutional (which it is, so sorry Vettebigot), the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has finally opted to hear arguments limiting "nationwide injunctions".
This is uncharted territory for the court system. There's been a loosy-goosy "don't overdo it" vibe about nationwide injunctions, but Trump has successfully pushed the edges of what is and is not legally acceptable that Papa Supreme has to establish some sort of limit for its rambunctious children.
The MAGA folks picked the most odious case they could find to press their argument that "the President is a King, if you squint really really hard": Trump's ridiculous executive fiat revoking citizenship of non-white people who were born on American soil, which courts had implied was the law of the land since 1898. The
The Supreme Court has to do something, but honestly, what they decide (strict limits, higher standard of evidence, or no limits for Republican presidents whatsoever) is completely up in the air.
"Justice" Neil Gorsuch has previously given lectures on how "one court issuing national injunctions is not a good way to do business", so one can surmise he's going to write the "no federal judge EVER" part of any decision, but there are eight other Justices to deal with.
One gets the impression that history will be judging Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure in part for cases like this held tomorrow.
At stake is whether a President can overrule a Constitutional amendment (in this case, the 14th amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship) by royal proclamation.
Final thought: Imagine what would happen if a Democratic president were to declare the 2nd amendment void by executive order!
