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.
Supreme Court tears down the constitution and rule of law
It’s going to be awhile before folks recognize just how damaging this is, if it plays out as I expect.
Trump’s entire life policy is to ignore norms, contracts, laws, and opposition until he’s stopped. It’s still dumbfounding he’s gotten this far, because he’s not some strange unknown entity - he’s a typical sociopath, pushing boundaries as far as they’ll go in his favor until he’s actually prevented from doing so.
His “litigate to delay” strategy is right in line with this. And now the norm is that his administration doesn’t just get to act unlawfully until a court enjoins him from it (if even that, and if even he follows the order). It’s now that his administration gets to act unlawfully to any individual who hasn’t, on their own, challenged it and won in court. And given how fast he is normalizing fascism, even if a substantial number challenge him, in a year when the cases are “won,” it’ll be too late, the moment will be lost.
If there was any doubt as to the health of the rule of law, this is basically the end of the line.
It isn’t quite what you’ve italicized, but make no mistake that’s it’s still a terrible precedent to set. Preliminary injunctions can still be granted by district courts, but now they need to be brought in the form of a class action and all the tediousness that entails. ACLU thankfully had one ready to go it seems just in case of this and it’s been filed already.
Nevertheless, this also enables insane infringement of the first amendment. There is nothing stopping him from declaring membership of a particular political party is illegal, including state parties, and then requiring each state to independently challenge under a restricted class action. It’s ludicrous.
Yep. First amendment to second. All cases that are on the constitutional sphere are affected
It’s what the people want. It’s what he did all his life, including his first term, and he announced he would do, and he is now doing.
At least there is peace in the middle east and in Ukraine, and eggs are a dime a dozen…
This is the most important thing, in my opinion, that the fucked up Trump court has ruled on. Saying a president can’t be prosecuted for crimes that were performed as part of his job was wild but unlikely to actually occur. This is both wild and already occurring on a daily basis. This is so unbelievably asinine.
To sum up: if a judge rules a law or action is obviously unconstitutional, the only person it is unconstitutional for is the person who brought the case to that specific judge.
On the one hand this seems awfully terrible for individual citizens that we now all have to file our own lawsuit. But on the other hand it also seems crippling to the federal government having to defend all of those lawsuits.
Are the judges of the highest court in America actually high?
The main takeaways here are:
The justices, in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, said that in most cases, judges can only grant relief to the parties who brought a particular lawsuit and may not extend those decisions to protect other individuals without going through the process of converting a suit into a class action.
The court did not rule on the legality of Trump’s order purporting to end birthright citizenship, although the three liberal justices said the president’s directive was clearly unlawful.
So, the plaintiffs will need to certify as a class in order for judges to issue nationwide injunctions now. That’s a pretty huge shift.
Man, what a great year for anarchism in the USA, first we had a No Kings day, now we have a No Citizens day! /gallows humor
Fr tho, this is awful. It seems like for now at least everybody needs to get their own lawyers and court dates to prove they’re a citizen if the Trump administration wants to go after you. BTW, a lot of law firms have struck deals with the administration limiting the kinds of pro bono work they will do. Also deportations to third party countries are legal for now. Also, they may deport you while you have a case pending and then do nothing to bring you back when a court does order it.
So, yeah, they’ve probably created a “no due process needed, exile all the uppity poor brown queers and any other deviant troublemakers we don’t like, unless they have someone inside the system that can get them a pass (and even then maybe do it anyway)” machine here. Call it fascism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, social darwinism, cyberpunk dystopia, whatever, I think we’re here now.
Call it fascism, dictatorship, totalitarianism, social darwinism, cyberpunk dystopia, whatever, I think we’re here now.
I think we’ve been there a long time it’s just taken someone as chaotic and despotic as Trump to actually use those reigns of power for this kind of thing. I remember feeling similarly about the kind of shit we let Dubya Bush get away with, and then learning some history and realizing this kind of overreach horseshit went all the way back to Reagan… then all the way back to Nixon.
The system was already this way, it was just waiting for the right twisted freak to fuck it all up from the inside.
You can always track further back to earlier causes, but I think that we took a real hard turn for the worse in this country when Ford pardoned Nixon and an angry mob didn’t rend Richard the Treacherous limb from limb. If the powers that be can just dispense Get Out Of Jail Free cards to their buddies and the people are unwilling or unable to fight back and force there to be consequences, then nobody in a position of power ever really needs to worry about abusing their office.
Then all the way back to the o. K corral. J.p Morgan didn’t like the unsettling climate that little war was creating for his investors. Dude went and basically bought the presidency. Sound familiar?
Look it up. Fascinating how far back federal corruption and local greed intersect
I mean, it’s not that fascinating, we’re a country that was basically founded by a bunch of wealthy landowners who hated being taxed. They hated contributing to a common good. They were like the Zuckebergs and Musks and Bezoses of their time. The country was literally founded on only land-owning white men being allowed to vote.
you’re right, not fascinating, more like “revealing”
That’s a pretty huge shit.
fixed that for you
This is essentially just further entrenchment of the imperial executive theory.
Methinks I’m gonna explore getting the fuck out of here for good.
“The universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
So was your right to vote. Shall we let the executive branch take that away on a whim as well?
They already did.
Ouch. …
They’re working on that.
And America’s descent into fascism continues unabated.
Buy guns. Buy ammo.
Lmao Americans ain’t gonna do shit with their weapons besides use them to post on tiktok and to take them to school.
Tyranny? We dont stop that here with our guns no sir. We want it.
The best time
to plant a treebuy a gun was 20 years ago, the second best time is nowYup. Anti-gun my whole life. Still am. But I’m in the process of buying my first firearm.
Historically, fascism has to be put down with bullets.
if you take a local gun safety course a Utah concealed permit can be obtained by mail and due to reciprocity agreements allows you to carry in most states, all the blue ones below.
We’re coming up to a time where we may need to use the second amendment as the founding fathers intended- and the conservative sheep won’t be happy about it!
We need to burn this motherfucker down!
Say Trump announces that you’re not a citizen, that gay marriage doesn’t exist, that all women must give birth annually, whatever. If you’re victimized by it, and have the money or can find a freebie lawyer, maybe you sue the federal government, and maybe you win. But even if you win, you only win for you. The millions of others in exactly your same situation each need to file their own lawsuits, and hope to win. (Unless it’s a class action lawsuit, which involves separate and very, very difficult legal hurdles.)
If I’m understanding this wrong, and cripes I hope I am, please 'splain it to me.
Well, clearly the court only said that the three judges in question had to stop issuing nationwide injunctions, right? The others haven’t done anything yet, and since each case has to be tried independently…
So fucking stupid. And a clear signal that they’re going to start deporting citizens now, since even though I can show my birth certificate, I can’t show my parents, or my parents parents and so on. Trace it back far enough and everyone will run into an ancestor that they can’t prove the citizenship of. “Oops, your citizenship is actually invalid! We’re sending you to a central American prison”.
Only in the aftermath will we know which moment was the final toppling, but for now, I’d nominate this.
My estimate is that this will result on 410 lawsuits filed per day. :o
I think it’s not a smart move to have 150 000 lawsuits per year over the same question - it’s much preferable to have 1 lawsuit for a whole class of people - defending the rights of everyone in the same situation - and some extra lawsuits for those who want to present a unique take on the matter.
