I'm stuck on this too. Universal injunctions are, in the abstract, a thorny subject, and SCOTUS has avoided big pronouncements on them, even dubious and patently erroneous ones that SCOTUS could've used to draw boundaries. To chose *this* case and do it *now* is indeed a devastating indictment. - ThreadSky

maxkennerly.bsky.social • 1 day ago

I'm stuck on this too. Universal injunctions are, in the abstract, a thorny subject, and SCOTUS has avoided big pronouncements on them, even dubious and patently erroneous ones that SCOTUS could've used to draw boundaries.

To chose *this* case and do it *now* is indeed a devastating indictment.

Reposted from Jamal Greene

If the Supreme Court thinks universal injunctions are unconstitutional, to wait until *now* to say that, in this of all cases, with this of all presidents, is a devastating indictment of both its impartiality and its prudence.

Comments

tts61.bsky.social•1 day ago

The Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate or serious branch of government. They’ve blatantly shown over and over that instead of following the Constitution, they will instead rewrite it (which is illegal) to benefit either trump or the rich that bribe them. Several Justices are as corrupt as trump

billthepony.bsky.social•1 day ago

I don't get why this is ao complicated...

The presidency is a national office. Its not a "nationwide injection" its one against the office which happens to be nationwide!

thatsthefactjack.bsky.social•23 hours ago

The court is compromised to end democracy. We still have a narrow, but effective way to fight back—SCOTUS says Trump can now issue any decree as law. States need to fight back.❗Read the article—especially the last paragraph!
https://bsky.app/profile/thatsthefactjack.bsky.social/post/3lso7iajtjs27

shower-cat.bsky.social•1 day ago

Am I wrong to see this as decision about ruling against birthright citizenship without *actually* ruling against it? Technically they didn’t, but practically speaking they’ve set the stage for it to end de facto over time?

modoubtingthomas.bsky.social•1 day ago

They've done this thing before -- setting them on the course to end/overturn x, y, or z.

shower-cat.bsky.social•1 day ago

That’s essentially what they did in Whole Women’s Health.

shower-cat.bsky.social•1 day ago

Whole Woman’s Health, damn autocorrect.

modoubtingthomas.bsky.social•14 hours ago

Yes

tehdeminz.bsky.social•1 day ago

At best it's a delaying tactic until they have to explicitly shoot down Trump's blatantly unconstitutional action for as long as possible, since Roberts is at best a spineless coward who doesn't want to actually perform his duty as a check on executive power.

doubtingtommy.bsky.social•1 day ago

Now is an infection point, a ripe opportunity to expropriate jurisprudence from we the people's constitution

victorytwin.bsky.social•1 day ago

Follow along Sotomayor Easter eggs….

Defense should demand clarity

pcollirigger.bsky.social•1 day ago

Same with the presidential immunity case.
This case?
This President?
NOW?
JFC

schizodelusion.bsky.social•1 day ago

My main issue is that the reasoning behind the decision is so bad. They relied on English law in 1789, as if that should be the standard for deciding what is just. https://bsky.app/profile/schizodelusion.bsky.social/post/3lsmzyguzus22

lapsedcentrist.bsky.social•1 day ago

It’s not an indictment, it’s an announcement of what the government has become and an invitation to civil war.

silversmith1.bsky.social•1 day ago

This “Supreme Court” is fundamentally illegitimate, as are 6 of its 9 members.

Long past time for them to be recognized as the clear & present danger they are.

dabenner.bsky.social•1 day ago

My prediction was 3,3,3 - holding of setting a very high bar, vacating and remanding with three to uphold and 3 to rule against citizenship. This is worse.

dabenner.bsky.social•1 day ago

IMO there should be a high bar based on degree of illegality and need for uniformity in application that however high this one clears

pklinkne.bsky.social•1 day ago

They are just calling balls and strikes, but with the ball a 100 mph fastball aimed at a person’s head.

jmteo.bsky.social•1 day ago

They could have gotten to this same place with a multitude of abortion cases. Abrogating judicial recourse in this context is telling on themselves.

maxkennerly.bsky.social•1 day ago

If the GOP justices on SCOTUS thought universal injunctions were unconstitutional, they had multiple opportunities to set boundaries via egregious injunctions from GOP judges blocking Biden measures.

They didn't.

They waited until now to help their President send citizens to foreign gulags.

jlp2024.bsky.social•16 hours ago

Has bagley responded to this?

nodietofworms.bsky.social•1 day ago

WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT HATE AMERICA?

bluememe.bsky.social•1 day ago

The Gang of Six believes history is important … just not *that* history.

nunyarunii.bsky.social•1 day ago

History is important when it’s on their side…

When they don’t like history, it’s suddenly time to break with precedent.

affidavitbowie.bsky.social•1 day ago

In baseball the strike zone famously shifts based on who is at bat. Justice Roberts knows this. The rest of us are fools, lacking the knowledge to grasp historical traditions of baseball.

voceofreason.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yup.
https://bsky.app/profile/voceofreason.bsky.social/post/3lslvbtxbbk2d

zaphodbeeblebr0x.bsky.social•1 day ago

Fascists

1andonlymickey.bsky.social•1 day ago

Yeah where this when the GOP shopped for a judge in Texas with two idiots that had no standing to overturn student debt relief?

nunyarunii.bsky.social•1 day ago

Exactly… They are strict constructionalists when interpreting for dem admins, and are all in for the unitary executive when interpreting for Trump…

It’s the Faux News court, not the Roberts court

mgocoder.bsky.social•1 day ago

The Rule of Law cannot survive if the arbiters of the law are blatantly corrupt.

jeremysmith.bsky.social•1 day ago

The MAGA majority are morally and intellectually corrupt. As for other aspects of corruption... who can say?

mgocoder.bsky.social•1 day ago

MAGA is inherently an immoral movement.

jb3po.bsky.social•1 day ago

I'd call that a crime and use it to impeach them if not charge them. Lower courts are going to have to start simply ruling based on the Constitution, because the Scotus is creating a lawless and self-contradictory legal record. Just rule constitutionally and force parties to ask Scotus to overturn.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply