The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
It should not be that hard for the court to tell Trump an EO is not a permissible method of amending the Constitution but here we are.
What is next after the 30 days, Trump starts rounding up kids in Texas and Florida because those states don’t sue the feds because of their governors are such aholes?
if the question in front of the court was that one, sure.
except they had to answer another question
This is just happy horseshit gamesmanship. The EO was before the court, they could have addressed the issue. They get to decide, not the parties. They were cowards.
This is just happy horseshit gamesmanship. The EO was before the court, they could have addressed the issue. They get to decide, not the parties. They were cowards.
Nope they get to answer what they accept to answer, but they can't answer questions that aren't asked.
And you know they very well.
They couldn't even answer about holding a lower court judgement or not because there isn't any yet.
The question they decided to answer (because it was asked) was about the 1789 judicial act and universal injunctions by district courts.
That was it, you can agree or disagree, but there was never a single instant in which the topic of the content of the EO had *any relevance at all*
Again, speaking authoritatively about subjects you know nothing about. The Supreme Court was certainly authorized to answer the ultimate issue of whether the EO is constitutional at any time they wish. They could pluck the issue from the trial or appellate courts if they wished.
Nope they get to answer what they accept to answer, but they can't answer questions that aren't asked.
This is incorrect.
Not sure the court has any original jurisdiction (not appellate) except in disputes between states or certain foreign-relations matters.
Not sure the court has any original jurisdiction (not appellate) except in disputes between states or certain foreign-relations matters.
They had a live controversy in front of them in the three state cases in the CASA case so I don't know why you even get to obscurity of the details of original jurisdiction if you are 'not sure". If you don't think they cannot grab a case if they want, you aren't paying much attention.
Supreme Court cases come in three varieties. Least numerous are the “original jurisdiction” actions, brought by one state against another, or between states and the federal government. The Constitution also empowers the Court to hear “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” In these the Court sits as a trial body from which there is no appeal.
Few original jurisdiction cases are filed—usually one to five a term—but sheer bulk makes many of these difficult. In 1952 Arizona sued California over water from the Colorado River. The completed trial record covered more than 26,000 pages. Briefs and other documents filed by the states took 4,000 more. The Justices heard 16 hours of oral argument in the fall of 1961, six hours more in November, 1962. Arizona prevailed in the Court’s decision in 1963.
More numerous, but mercifully shorter, are cases from state courts. If any state tribunal decides a federal question and the litigant has no further remedy within the state, the Supreme Court may consider it.
Most common—roughly two-thirds of the total—are requests for review of decisions of federal appellate or district courts. The great majority of cases reach the Supreme Court through its granting of petitions for writs of certiorari, from the Latin certiorari volumnus, “we wish to be informed.”
They had a live controversy in front of them in the three state cases in the CASA case so I don't know why you even get to obscurity of the details of original jurisdiction if you are 'not sure". If you don't think they cannot grab a case if they want, you aren't paying much attention.
Because the district and appeal courts had NOT ruled on the constitutionality of the EO, the entire edifice of the case was strictly about the enforcement of the universal injunctions.
The EO could have been about forcing all 29y old to drink fizzy water and it would have been the same
And in this case it was about reviewing appel courts which denied to stay injunctions.
It was about the injunctions not the constitutional merits of the original EO.
Everyone with a basic understanding of the process knows that.
But the vile democrats deny this
Because the district and appeal courts had NOT ruled on the constitutionality of the EO, the entire edifice of the case was strictly about the enforcement of the universal injunctions.
The EO could have been about forcing all 29y old to drink fizzy water and it would have been the same
You are going to have to provide some case law or procedure that says this court can't rule on the constitutionality of the EO if you want to be convincing with you fizzy water analogy.
The bottom line is trump violated an extremely clear amendment and the sc has, so far, said that is perfectly fine. Until they say otherwise they are basically crowning a fascist dictator and tossing out the constitution.
Because the district and appeal courts had NOT ruled on the constitutionality of the EO, the entire edifice of the case was strictly about the enforcement of the universal injunctions.
There are no such constraints on the Court except those it puts upon itself as it rules on each case. They were perfectly able to say, "The district judge overstepped on the restraining order, but we find the EO so egregious that we will rule on it right now". This dispute is not about process.
A lot of what is being written in the last two dozen posts is wrong or imprecise. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is very limited. For most practical purposes, the Supreme Court is an appellate court.
Appellate courts are presented with specific issues on appeal. Generally speaking, appellate courts avoid deciding questions that do not have to be decided in order to resolve the specific issues that are on appeal. Could the Supreme Court, in a case where it did not need to decide a constitutional issue in order to rule on the appeal, say, "oh, by the way, we don't need to decide this constitutional issue, but for XYZ reason, we are going to do so"? Sure. No one tells the Supreme Court what to write in its opinions. But that would much more of the exception than the rule.
The bottom line is trump violated an extremely clear amendment and the sc has, so far, said that is perfectly fine. Until they say otherwise they are basically crowning a fascist dictator and tossing out the constitution.
rick is correct that birthright citizenship is neither ubiquitous nor indispensable to a functioning democracy. I am much more concerned about the broader implications of the Court's ruling than I am about the narrow issue of birthright citizenship. Whether you favor birthright citizenship or not, it is expressly provided for in the Constitution. And in a world in which the White House is occupied by an authoritarian who truly does not gaf whether his actions are legal or not, I think that it is imperative that federal courts be allowed to issue injunctions. Unless we change the class action rules to rapidly expedite the class action process for certain types of cases, I don't see any other mechanism to prevent the federal government from flouting the constitution, particularly on issues like birthright citizenship where the violation probably cannot be remedied by a ruling two years after the government action in question.
Also, FWIW, this is another area where the Republicans probably should be careful what they wish for. They were huge fans of local federal courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions when Democrats were in control of the government.
rick is correct that birthright citizenship is neither ubiquitous nor indispensable to a functioning democracy. I am much more concerned about the broader implications of the Court's ruling than I am about the narrow issue of birthright citizenship. Whether you favor birthright citizenship or not, it is expressly provided for in the Constitution. And in a world in which the
The problem is that the Dems have been going for everything Trump does . Also at issue is the Dems always go to the California courts and the GOP goes to the Texas court.
From Smerconish transcripts on the weekend . I still think the best scenario is force the Dems to go to the Texas courts and the GOP to the California courts
SMERCONISH: Dean Chemerinsky, in reading in on this issue, I found a law review article from Harvard from a year ago, and it contained a chart that I'm going to put up on the screen right now. I don't know if you can see it, but what it summarizes are the number of times that an injunction was issued by a judge appointed by the president's opposing party.
And there's a trend that emerges. It's on the rise. For example, there were only six nationwide injunctions on W's watch, President Bush. Three of the six issued by a judge appointed by the president of the opposing party.
The number rises to seven and 12 for Obama. But all of a sudden, now on Trump's watch, it's 59 of 64 of those injunctions come from a judge appointed by an opposing party. For Biden, it's 14 of 14, meaning every time he was stymied, it was by a judge appointed in that case by a Republican.
And overall, the total is, according to H
Don’t you mean we have a President that constantly tries to bypasses the Constitution and the Congress by using executive orders, Mr. Whataboutism?
Don’t you mean we have a President that constantly tries to bypasses the Constitution and the Congress by using executive orders, Mr. Whataboutism?
Well it seems to me the Supreme Court tends to disagree . Im so glad Biden never utilized executive orders and over stepped his boundaries .
I came up with a simple solution for challenging executive orders for each party
As for birthright citizenship its clearly being abused and not what the folks that drafted the constitution would have expected
Well it seems to me the Supreme Court tends to disagree . Im so glad Biden never utilized executive orders and over stepped his boundaries .
I came up with a simple solution for challenging executive orders for each party
As for birthright citizenship its clearly being abused and not what the folks that drafted the constitution would have expected
The people who wrote the constitution had no immigration rules at all. AFAIK people just arrived here on ships, moved wherever they wanted to, and no one tried to stop them.
Then their sons (if they were white and maybe if they owned property) were considered to be full citizens. Though the question of eligibility to vote was generally determined by the state, even for national elections.
Until 1971, 18 year olds could vote for president in some states, while in others they had to wait as long as three more years.
The president and congress didn't even consider themselves able to regulate who could or couldn't vote without a constitutional amendment being passed.
It's just bizarre to think that a president can unilaterally determine who is or isn't a citizen, especially when it clearly goes against the original intentions of the founders.
Well it seems to me the Supreme Court tends to disagree . Of course they do. They are now just trump sycophants. Not even close to being the branch of government that is supposed to check the other two.I came up with a simple solution for challenging executive orders for each partyAs for birthright citizenship its clearly being abused and not what the folks that drafted the c
.
I thought Trump signing 164 EOs in his first 100+ days was an indication of how much harder he was working than Biden only passing 162 in 4 years. I guess you just can’t believe the right wing media these days.
It is highly doubtful that the “folks that drafted the constitution” were involved in drafting the 14th amendment, unless they are still on the social security rolls like DOGE claims.
I'm thinking it's about time to knock down that silly statue of the woman holding up the torch. Probably a DEI statue anyway.
Maybe about time to stop the 'wise men' interpreting a centuries old bit of paper nonsense.
I guess it depends on what you want. I expect that Trump would be thrilled with this idea.
