But…the founding fathers didn’t follow US immigration law.
Checkmate, motherfuckers!
15 Likes
An analyst on the radio was also saying, in all seriousness, that SCOTUS judges may also have a more personal reason that they’d like judges to stop doing this: Emergency Nationwide injunctions are more likely to require SCOTUS intervention and that can interrupt their summer break schedule.
8 Likes
I don’t think they care about that. Maybe Alito and Thomas, but I don’t think that’s a factor for the others. But there is a long dislike of forum shopping in the courts.
13 Likes
Well Kagan is on the record on this issue:
(But at least in her case I don’t think she’d allow personal inconvenience to affect her decision on this matter.)
8 Likes
Yeah, that’s a legitimate issue, along with the bullshit of the shadow docket. I think the Court is partly responsible for that problem, though. Congress bears some blame, too. Congress is so dysfunctional, that Presidents have been doing more and more by EO, which inevitably triggers lawsuits because it’s really not how government is supposed to work. But SCOTUS is accepting a lot of cases where the existing precedent is fine, and they should be refusing to hear the case, but the conservatives want to change everything. It’s a mess. All of it.
16 Likes
15 Likes
In listening to some of the questioning I was a little relieved to hear that some of the conservative Justices seemed not to be impressed at all by the arguments that Sauer was making. You could clearly hear the skepticism in Kavanaugh’s voice when he was asking that series of questions about what hospitals are supposed to do with newborns and Saur just said “we just don’t know” and “Federal officials will have to figure that out.”
13 Likes
Yeah, that statement is in direct contradiction with what the Court decided in Loper Bright last year, that federal officials don’t have the authority to just “figure it out.” Either Congress has to make it clear, or it’s up to the courts to figure out. Which may not be very efficient, but they’re the ones who decided to kneecap the administrative state, so here they are.
15 Likes
I thought it was smart for Sotomayor to ask this question:
Because obviously the gun-loving conservative justices would support an emergency nationwide injunction in that scenario. If they decide that nationwide injunctions shouldn’t be allowed in this case they will now have to somehow try to explain why it would be allowed in others. (Or, who knows, maybe not. Consistency isn’t one of their strengths)
16 Likes
I’m sure Alito and Thomas will make up some way that “well that’s different.” I don’t know what that could be, but they’ll make up something. It can’t be because there’s no longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship, though. We didn’t invent that idea with the 14th Amendment. We got that from England. They don’t have birthright citizenship anymore, I don’t think, but they definitely used to, and they had it long before the United States was an independent country.
15 Likes
18 Likes
Unsurprisingly…
Two conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – publicly noted their dissent.
18 Likes
They should make them sit at a different table when they have lunch.
17 Likes
in tRumpWorld, Justice Thomas has to sit at a table with Justice Jackson.
with a sign that says…
well… you know what it says.
how i wish that i could realistically add the [/s] tag, but you know it’s true of this administration.
14 Likes
People who have dinner with Tramp probably have to sit through him saying things like, Segregation was a beautiful thing. I don’t know why we gave it up. Birds of a feather, such a beautiful thing. BURP!!
13 Likes
Dear media: those two are not “conservative”. All the others are mostly conservative. I mean, Coney Barrett is a traditionalist conservative, and Sotomayor is a progressive conservative, but they’re all conservatives: they believe in tradition and convention and precedent to maintain the common good with gradual changes and reinterpretations as needed.
Alito and Thomas are not conservatives. They will burn it all down in a moment if there’s profit in it. They are corrupt fascist-enablers at best, and more likely just outright corrupt fascists. That’s not
“conservative”.
Words have meanings, you disingenuous cowards.
25 Likes
Radically overturning the status quo to meet an extremist agenda is not conservative.
I hate the way people talk about this too.
20 Likes
15 Likes
12 Likes
Yes, in this case, it works out to his advantage, and I suspect he’s in the right on that case, although I honestly don’t know anything about it. However, the fact that five Justices had to recuse themselves because of a connection to one company is NOT good. What if another case involving Penguin Random House comes up to them where the appeals court got it wrong? Or if it involves a novel issue that there’s a circuit split on where SCOTUS really needs to resolve the issue? I’m glad they recused themselves, but fuck . . . they really need to start avoiding those conflicts in the first place.
17 Likes