Trump hails 'win' as Supreme Court curbs judges' power to block his orders
www.bbc.com
The 6-3 decision is a major boost for the president and his agenda, which has been repeatedly blocked by lower courts.

BREAKING: US Supreme Court releases opinion on birthright citizenship case

[7 minutes after the hour]

The document has just dropped from the Supreme Court. It’s 119 pages long, we’re reading through it currently. It appears that it will not be a clear upheld or rejected decision from the court. Stick with us.

I’m putting links to good, clear Bluesky threads into the comments.

-–

Edit

Law Bluesky is a trip. Who gives a fuck?

Prediction: Footnote 18 from the universal injunction opinion will not stand the test of time

  • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
    24·
    29 days ago

    Kavanaugh’s concurrence gives the game away: the Supreme Court will continue to rule on quasi-nationwide injunctions. It will just do so through the shadow docket, ensuring that all efforts to block GOP actions are stopped, and all efforts to block Democratic actions are approved.

    https://bsky.app/profile/sashotodorov.bsky.social/post/3lsltjtemrs2l

    -–

    Edit

    An incredibly naïve take about this an MSNBC legal guy named Andrew Weissmann. He actually "Well, actually"ed common sense takes. ‪

    The S Ct today did NOT deny anyone birthright citizenship; it addressed “nationwide injunctions,” limiting courts from issuing them. They can issue injunctions within their district. Remember: this will prevent conservative judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in mifepristone and other cases.

    https://bsky.app/profile/weissmann.substack.com/post/3lslyilodas2d

    • Maturin [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      9·
      29 days ago

      Surely the Supreme Court will remain consistent when it comes to those conservative nation-wide injunctions. Definitely nothing to worry about here.

      • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        5·
        29 days ago

        In a coincidence he was on MSNBC and got to hear him explain he that there was a “silver lining” of “a few positive crumbs”. I couldn’t follow his comments or his logic at all. It seemed like he was talking in circles. The next legal expert was having none of it. She said there was no silver lining and the ruling was atrocious.

          • InevitableSwing [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
            2·
            29 days ago

            MSNBC must provide him with a nice little revenue stream. He has a law podcast. He has a Substack. Maybe he’s available to give speeches? Maybe he writes books? In any case MSNBC viewers and libs of all kinds do not (and will not) want to hear comments like that. I wonder how strong his convictions are. My hunch is he is unwilling to bite the hand that feeds him and in a day or two he’ll say “I believe was too optimistic on the day of the ruling…”