Posted on 06/27/2025 7:18:05 AM PDT by CaptainK
"The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power"
BRC was not in front of the Court.
It seems these lawyers, who are now SCOTUS judges, love to keep it confusing for the business of lawyering.
Why?
After all, we know all about tax and insurance costs, but can you imagine how good life might be for us with less legal litigation?
Excellent news.
Now, regarding the Boston judge who thinks he can defy the SCOTUS, what if all these other judges say nope, not gonna follow it?
SCOTUS need to invoke a more explicit denial.
Coney Barret’s exact words:
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Agree. It seems like they can still go universal if there’s an already, legally recognized class. Is that right?
We know removal is impossible. The purpose of the Trump impeachments was to dirty his reputation. The purpose of these judicial impeachments would be similar and deliver a warning to politicized jurists going forward.
Team Trump doesn’t seem to be in on the required volume, but why is removal not possible?
So, POTUS’s EO ending birthright citizenship holds except for the plaintiffs challenging it?
It’s called conservatism.
That is my opinion, but IANAL.
That is one of the most strongly worded takedown of a fellow Justice by a sitting Justice. Note that in the main opinion, Barrett cited for support many statements/arguments made in earlier cases by Sotomayor. It was a subtle strike at SS that she was not being consistent upon her views.
Praise the lord for the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo. It was that organization that provided all the majority Supreme Court justices. Leo and the Federalist Society deserves an apology from PDJT and his comments last week.
Gwjack
Potus should immediately end citizenship for any child not possibly biologically conceived in this country. That would end tourism citizenship at once. I’d make it retroactive, but even if it isn’t, it would be an improvement.
Maybe that would get scotus to directly rule on the 14th amendment.
it took dang long enough.
excellent...
$MAGA
“Either Federal laws apply to EVERY State equally or they don’t. Which is it, Roberts? Or do we have to repeat the first half of the 1860’s?”
That’s for the Supreme Court, the one national court, to decide, not every random little nobody left-wing activist district court judge in some deep blue area.
Is there a pool for when some random judge fires off an injunction ruling against this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.