This is a favorite Right tactic. Once in power, all their legal fees are paid by the the taxpayers. They can put in countless illegal laws and force the Left to fight endless legal battles. That drains money Left people would contribute to political campaigns and lets Trump crow about 'activist' jusges
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
262 points (98.9% liked)
News
24249 readers
4871 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't understand why temporary.
Pending a ruling. Not uncommon.
Then the ruling will get challenged to the next court up and so on until it hits the Supreme Court which will issue a 6-3 ruling agreeing with Trump.
It's kinda written right there into the 14th ammendment. You'd have to agree that they are not subject to our laws, which would be a pretty hard sell even to this supreme court.
This supreme court has shown repeatedly that they don’t care what the Constitution says, no matter how clear or obvious. Their “interpretive” power is so broad that they can, have, and will casually override it whenever they feel like it.
They've always used some kind of ambiguity in wording to hide behind. There is none in regards to this. It is directly spelled out.
They're basically like an evil genie. They'll find SOME way to twist the words to mean whatever they want no matter how clear they appear to be.
I think they might actually buy the argument around jurisdiction, which is... scary.
If they aren't under our jurisdiction, we can't arrest them for murder
No, you see, the argument will go that as long as they're here illegally and free, they're "unsuccessfully under jurisdiction" and once they're arrested, they're "under jurisdiction" and therefore the child isn't a US citizen but "obviously while they're here they'll be punished for their crimes" once they're "successfully under jurisdiction"
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
SCOTUS seemed to not like a lot of Biden's EOs though, I wonder why that could be...
14A S3 didn't count, why should 14A S1?
This one is plain language, and very explicit about who is a citizen. There was at least wiggle room to argue semantics about 14A S3, even though everybody knew what was intended by it. It is clear, concise, and very to the point.
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.
SCOTUS is insane but they pick and choose when to be insane. Don't assume all cases will go a given way
The judge who just put a temporary injunction was even a Ronald Regan appointee
I'd think the only way they'd rule against him would be to say "Interpreting the Constitution is our job, not yours." But then they'd maintain the interpretation under their branding.
The right wing SCOTUS has ruled against more directly against Trump before, and has done so recently. For instance, he called for them to block the TikTok law, and they ruled 9-0 the other way.
Or they also might just not pick up the case. SCOTUS often just lets rulings like this happen by letting the lower court rulings stand
Every fight is worth having
The moment they directly contradict specific plain text of the Constitution, they invalidate the document giving them their own authority.
Yeah, that's what I think this is about. I don't think they care at all about the birthright citizenship. They are testing what they can get away with, and how far they can push right now to tear up the constitution.
Which would also be the end of their usefulness to Trump et al.
So, for US Federal Court, there's basically three levels: District (trial), Circuit (appeals), and Supreme Court (...of the United States, aka "SCOTUS," a second level appeals court and the final arbiter of federal constitutional questions). This was a lawsuit filed in a District court in Washington state. As everybody gets their pleadings in order, they will move towards a trial. The loser will appeal, and then appeal again.
HOWEVER, in a case like this, which seems to be a huge departure from existing constitutional precedent, and which could seriously fuck over the affected kiddos born after February 19, a trial court judge is within their power to issue a temporary injunction, which basically says, "hold up y'all, this would be crazy, and unless you just wow us with legal brilliance (or SCOTUS fucks us over) it's probably going away, and in the meantime we've all been doing okay with the previous interpretation, so the change is on ice until we get this sorted." It is inherently temporary because nothing's been actually argued or analyzed and decided.
Of course, now THAT will get appealed, because you can appeal stuff other than final decisions, particularly when by their nature they're stuff that needs to apply either to everybody in the country or to no one (versus, like, telling Company A to hold off on selling a piece of land) and that's what SCOTUS will probably rule on well before the actual merits, though in this case it's all of a piece and therefore we'll get a huge hint as to how they're leaning if they overturn the injunction. Letting it stand would imply they agree with the district judge or at least that a couple of justices haven't made up their minds.
People get very emotional about this stuff because the issues ARE emotional and I find it despicable that this is where we are, but the process is gonna process, and nothing final will have happened this quickly.
Because if they actually rule it can be appealed to the Supreme Court, a temporary injunction needs a compelling reason to overrule.
Aileen Cannon abused this bullshit tactic quite a lot in Jack Smith's case.
I can see her getting on the supreme Court soon if Thomas or Alito are in the mood to retire. It's always useful to set the precedent that being blatantly biased towards Trump will pay off.
Comparing the Warren court to this is straight up comical.
Roberts still has this bullshit idea that people respect the court and is likely to push back on any drastic departures with tradition simply out of pride.
Who the fuck knows if the sky will be blue tomorrow but I suspect they'll not intercede in a temporary injunction.
Judges decide whether or not these executive orders are legal, so it shouldn't come as a big surprise why he he appointed so many judges last time.
By my read, this temporary injunction applies ONLY to the plaintiff states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. It doesn't stop it from being applied in the rest of the country.
If the EO is deemed unconstitutional in those states, guess what? It's unconstitutional federally (i.e. everywhere).
Ultimately, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And there it will die. If the SC approves this illegal EO, there will be a 99% chance of Civil War.
If the SC approves this illegal EO, there will be a 99% chance of Civil War.
We may end up in a Civil War, but it will not be over Birthright Citizenship. However, it may be over the next unconstitutional EOs he writes, if this one is approved by the SC. Because if they let this one through, he has permission to do much worse.
If the SC approves this illegal EO, there will be a 99% chance of Civil War.
I’d put that chance closer to 0%. The people who care enough about the rule of law have too much to lose, and those on the side of the fascists either have nothing to lose or are too infirm to fight.
America will die with a whimper, not a bang. Smart people will move to other countries, high-skill immigrants will stop immigrating, and the economy will eventually collapse.