SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide

[Always in His Presence]

But I still maintain that certain SCOTUS justices seem more than willing to aid Trump's attempts to wield dictator-like powers.

Except for the number of time that they don't - got it.


----We support SCOTUS only when they do what we agree with ----

 

[JSRG]

What's stopping a future administration from doing it? And you can't say "the Constitution", given that the same Constitution also guarantees Due Process to everyone. I want a meaningful and articulated reason why, since courts cannot make nation wide injunctions against executive orders, then what is to stop President Woke Leftist McGee in 2028 from taking guns away from American people through an executive order?

-CryptoLutheran

The fact the American people can challenge it in court, just like they can challenge various things the current president is doing. They just don't get the benefit of universal injunctions over it (unless Congress takes the unlikely step of granting lower judges that power).

 

[ralliann]

The fact the American people can challenge it in court, just like they can challenge various things the current president is doing. They just don't get the benefit of universal injunctions over it (unless Congress takes the unlikely step of granting lower judges that power).

No because the power they would be taking belongs to the supreme court. The Supreme court said it was in the PESIDENTIAL POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. They were stepping out of their lane.
We cannot have unelected persons with this kind of power. That is what "GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE" MEANS. We Choose polititians to do things ON OUR BEHALF, BY OUR COLLECTIVE WILL..
Judges in no way are to impose their will. They are there to adjudicate the law given them by our governing bodies, which we the people put in that power to do our will.

 

[JSRG]

No because the power they would be taking belongs to the supreme court. The Supreme court said it was in the PESIDENTIAL POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. They were stepping out of their lane.
We cannot have unelected persons with this kind of power. That is what "GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE" MEANS. We Choose polititians to do things ON OUR BEHALF, BY OUR COLLECTIVE WILL..
Judges in no way are to impose their will. They are there to adjudicate the law given them by our governing bodies, which we the people put in that power to do our will.

The court didn't say anything about what was in the Presidential power of the executive branch" In fact, that isn't even particularly relevant to the decision, given that universal injunctions get done for challenges to laws, not just executive action.

The whole point of the decision was to say that lower courts did not have the power to grant universal injunctions (at least not to the extent they were granting them) because Congress hadn't actually given them that power. That's literally right there in the description of what was held in the decision itself:

Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide com

See the mention of "equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts"? That's why, if Congress write up and passed a law granting them that power, then judges could issue them, regardless of whatever the presidential power of the Executive Branch has.

 

[A New Dawn]

This ruling will make the work of opposing Executive Orders a bit more arduous, (opponents will have to find people affected by an EO in each Circuit and sue).
Maybe this will be better?
If there is a unanimity of opinions between the circuits, then we should be able to better understand why an EO succeeds (or fails), if there’s circuit splits, then off to SCOTUS.

It certainly seems that that is the way it should work. I mean, judges don’t usually unilaterally start taking actions against a party without a complainant. Not having a complainant means that the accused cannot face their accuser. Totally contrary to our justice system.

 

[A New Dawn]

Yup, El Presidente gets to do anything he wants, and the courts can't say a thing.

But not like a dictator. No, no.

-- A2SG, what's next? Punishing the media outlets who don't praise him enough?

I guess they got rid of the rolling eyes smilie.

 

[A New Dawn]

I don't recall any other president denying due process and shipping accused people to other countries, and then refusing to return them when ordered to by the court. Is this common practice for US president and I somehow missed it happening?

But, further, even if we assume it has happened before, and often, does that mean it's a practice that should continue?

I could say the same about any of Trump's other attempts to subvert the constitution, but that stands as one example.


-- A2SG, but in the end, I know I'm just some random yahoo on the internet....

I’m assuming you are forgetting the two times that Biden ignored the SCOTUS ruling?

 

[ralliann]

The court didn't say anything about what was in the Presidential power of the executive branch" In fact, that isn't even particularly relevant to the decision, given that universal injunctions get done for challenges to laws, not just executive action.

The whole point of the decision was to say that lower courts did not have the power to grant universal injunctions (at least not to the extent they were granting them) because Congress hadn't actually given them that power. That's literally right there in the description of what was held in the decision itself:

This is about what constitutes Citizenship, regarding the phrase "under the jurisdiction of." That has yet to be decided. Trump did this on purpose so that it would FINALLY be decided. And it should. No other country allows people to come into their country and give birth, and that baby is a citizen. Because it is insane IMO.

Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide com

See the mention of "equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts"? That's why, if Congress write up and passed a law granting them that power, then judges could issue them, regardless of whatever the presidential power of the Executive Branch has.

This is about "Birthright citizenship. The rights thy claimed Illegals enjoyed Concerning The Jurisdiction thy were under.
Congress has not given the lower court any law concerning this particular. Trump knew that as well. He wanted this to set in motion. It is important.

The issue here is: Does the jurisdiction speak of the US Government, or does it mean ANOTHER government. It depends who it is speaking about. It was spoken during the time of slavery...The children of Slaves way back in American history. Their Children being under the jurisdiction of their parents slave holder, or are their children under the jurisdiction of the US Government (free).
There is no question the citizen of another country, is under the jurisdiction of their country of which they are a citizen. That jurisdiction does not end when they step foot in this country!
Those courts DO NOT have the power to take this question up. The supreme court can only take this up. Congress can make law concerning this ONLY IF this question is answered by the Supreme court.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No other country allows people to come into their country and give birth, and that baby is a citizen. Because it is insane IMO.

Several do, actually.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is about "Birthright citizenship. The rights thy claimed Illegals enjoyed Concerning The Jurisdiction thy were under.
Congress has not given the lower court any law concerning this particular. Trump knew that as well. He wanted this to set in motion. It is important.

The issue here is: Does the jurisdiction speak of the US Government, or does it mean ANOTHER government. It depends who it is speaking about. It was spoken during the time of slavery...The children of Slaves way back in American history. Their Children being under the jurisdiction of their parents slave holder, or are their children under the jurisdiction of the US Government (free).
There is no question the citizen of another country, is under the jurisdiction of their country of which they are a citizen. That jurisdiction does not end when they step foot in this country!

This isn’t about the citizens of other countries, it’s about babies born in this country.

Those courts DO NOT have the power to take this question up. The supreme court can only take this up. Congress can make law concerning this ONLY IF this question is answered by the Supreme court.

Congress already have made a law for this. The Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[ralliann]

Several do, actually.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This isn’t about the citizens of other countries, it’s about babies born in this country.

Congress already have made a law for this. The Fourteenth Amendment.

The court had no power to decide that, let alone you...LOL
It was about whose jurisdiction they were subject to. The mother is still under the jurisdiction of her own country. The baby, is under the same.
It was done to deal with slavery. Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of our government because they step foot on our land. They continue a citizen and under the jurisdiction of their country of origin. This will be decided in due time. By the Supreme court.
See in your article, it also had a purpose concerning slavery.
Quote
along with the emergence of successful wars of independence movements that widened the definition and granting of citizenship, as a prerequisite to the abolishment of slavery since the 19th century.[5]

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The court had no power to decide that, let alone you...LOL
It was about whose jurisdiction they were subject to. It was done to deal with slavery. Illegals are not under the jurisdiction of our government because they step foot on our land.

Everyone within the territories of the United States are within US jurisdiction. That’s how the country is able to enforce its laws. Illegal and undocumented immigrants are most certainly subject to US law.

They continue a citizen and under the jurisdiction of their country of origin.

Yes and any babies born here are citizens of the United States. That’s how it’s been interpreted for well over a century.

This will be decided in due time. By the Supreme court.

It’s already been decided by the Congress a long time ago.

Here I’ll quote the relevant part.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It doesn’t say anything about this pertaining only to slaves or that the parents must already be citizens. Citizenship is automatic upon birth within our country. What Trump is trying to get is a reinterpretation of our laws from how they’ve been historically treated.

 

[ralliann]

Everyone within the territories of the United States are within US jurisdiction. That’s how the country is able to enforce its laws. Illegal and undocumented immigrants are most certainly subject to US law.

Yes and any babies born here are citizens of the United States. That’s how it’s been interpreted for well over a century.

It’s already been decided by the Congress a long time ago.

Here I’ll quote the relevant part.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It doesn’t say anything about this pertaining only to slaves or that the parents must already be citizens. Citizenship is automatic upon birth within our country. What Trump is trying to get is a reinterpretation of our laws from how they’ve been historically treated.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Not necessarily. An illegal is not subject to the jurisdiction united states, They are illegal aliens. Their child is not either. In freeing slaves, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. Obviously this was to deny anyone else Jurisdiction over them. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states here. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin, (aliens). Slaves however were not aliens. They were given citizenship to free them from slavery.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Not necessarily. An illegal is not subject to the jurisdiction united states, their child is not either. In freeing slaves, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. Obviously this was to deny anyone else Jurisdiction oner them. Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. They are subject to their country of origin.

Again, this is pertaining to babies born in the United States. They are U.S. citizens.

 

[A2SG]

So you think Judges should?

Should what? If you mean uphold the Constitution, then yeah. If you mean provide checks and balances to an executive branch bent on authoritarian goals, also yeah.

That is really what you are arguing for. The Supreme court simply put it "back" where it belonged. Not what one has the power to do, but who has the power to do it.

Put what back? Best I can tell, the Supreme Court has granted the President an immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed in office so long as they are couched as "official acts," they've limited federal courts' ability to check executive branch overreach. Did these powers exist previously, but were somehow denied by a previous court ruling?

-- A2SG, or were they simply not constitutional before.....

 

[A2SG]

Except for the number of time that they don't - got it.

Right. There are nine justices on the Court, and while conservatives may currently hold a majority, there are times other conservatives don't agree with the more pro-authoritarian ones.

Were you unaware of that?

----We support SCOTUS only when they do what we agree with ----

When have I said I don't support their authority? I can do that and still disagree with some rulings, ya know.

-- A2SG, y'all should remember how that felt back before Roe v Wade was overturned.....

 

[A2SG]

I’m assuming you are forgetting the two times that Biden ignored the SCOTUS ruling?

I must have. Please remind me.

-- A2SG, can't remember everything.....

 

[Fervent]

Exactly. Trump says he wants to do something, one court rules that the Constitution doesn't allow it, and Trump's handpicked SCOTUS says yes, he can do it anyway.

You make it sound like Trump enacted Roosevelt's court packing plan.

 

[ralliann]

Several do, actually.

Jus soli - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I stand corrected. Some countries have changed on that. As it seems it has/had purposes which were no longer needed.

 

[A2SG]

You make it sound like Trump enacted Roosevelt's court packing plan.

Nah. Actually, I may have misspoken when I said it was Trump's hand picked Supreme Court. Clearly, the Federalist Society had more of a hand in that, Trump is merely the beneficiary of those SCOTUS justices who seem to favor a more authoritarian Executive branch.

-- A2SG, checks and balances, so last century....

 

[ralliann]

Again, this is pertaining to babies born in the United States. They are U.S. citizens.

It does not pertain to this......
All persons born or naturalized in the United States

It pertains to this......
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The supreme court will decide on this...