That might have unfavorable tax implications for Mr. Crow (i.e. he would have to pay taxes on it). Instead, how about they declare that Justices are also immune from the law for “official acts”. Then Thomas can accept the jet directly with no worries about any accountability!
4 Likes
Noem is going about this all wrong - she just has to detain and threaten to deport a billionaire. I’m sure they’ll cough up a suitable Gulfstream under the threat of mandatory government accommodations in sunny El Salvador.
5 Likes
The class-action offramp is stupid. What, are we going to give class members the opportunity to opt out and maybe get deported even though they were born here?
The point of the injunction is that it binds THE DEFENDANT, not the plaintiffs.
15 Likes
MAGATS would claim it as the patriotic thing to do.
1 Like
He won’t notice.
2 Likes
Sauer giving no wiggle room for the Sleazy Six to make a split the baby decision. Either they back down from this fight and acknowledge that the Courts are functionally subservient to the Executive Branch. Or they step up and fight back.
We already know when two of those six votes will end up. Now we see how the other four will fall.
5 Likes
Also, I think it’s an open question whether you can have class members who haven’t even been born at the time of the judgment.
If AT&T is overcharging customers by $0.50 per billing cycle, a court can both certify a class of customers to recover damages AND enjoin AT&T – nationwide – from continuing its illegal billing practice.
10 Likes
Mr. Crow (and any of his fellow billionaires) didn’t get rich by paying a penny more in taxes than they could get away with. It’s pathological, which is why they fight kicking and screaming against even very affordable amounts of taxes for them.
3 Likes
Inflation is everywhere ; - )
4 Likes
Feature, not a bug. Every generation will have to get a new class action judgment to keep being considered US born citizens.
3 Likes
He’s cursing himself because he sold out for an RV when he could have had his very own Flying Bordello!
5 Likes
Maybe, but I have faith in his accountants’ ability to make the operation of the luxury sky-hotel a deduction that completely negates any increased tax burden from purchasing it.
1 Like
Not as long as Uncle Thomas has anything to say about it.
5 Likes
Fair enough.
Just setup it up under JusticesFlyForFree LLC, occasionally rent it out and it’s a ‘business deduction.’
3 Likes
And they can only file when they are suffering the consequences of being deported. Tough to file a lawsuit from a prison in Libya.
6 Likes
It is looking less likely that Whore House One will get approved, but perhaps they can give it to a member of SCOTUS on behalf of FOTUS, and then that person can “give” it to him after the interminable term comes to an end. That will also be an incentive for him to go ahead and retire and stop yammering about a third term.
1 Like
I told my adult kids that my late great grandmother and late father-in-law, both born apprx 125 years ago, were both “anchor babies”.
Mothers came here to give birth to them.
6 Likes
I don’t disagree, but we are talking about something even more fundamental to the entire nation here. The right we are arguing about is enshrined in the Constitution, the absolute supreme law of the land applicable to everyone and every state in the United States. What would be the point of a Constitutional amendment if it could simply be overridden, at least in parts of the country, by the Executive Branch ignoring it. Yeah, yeah, that may be in the Constitution and it may have been ratified by the states, but sorry bub, no one has actually vindicated that right in a court of law in this district so you don’t get that right. Ridiculous.
8 Likes
I don’t mean to be an asshole about things, given the shitty state of some of the judiciary who get judge-shopped in order to get a nation-wide injunction that would never fly in any other court. But honestly that’s a different problem than the concept of a ‘nationwide injunction’.
It seems really obvious to me that if you say a party cannot do something because it’s likely unconstitutional, or even “merely” against the law, and your authority is FEDERAL, that should mean that party cannot do that thing ANYWHERE in the United States. Extra reasoning should be required to say “well no, this order should only apply in this federal circuit” - for instance, a competing order in another circuit. And whenever that happens, both orders should be reined-in to that circuit and fast-tracked to appeals bodies in both circuits, and if both appeals bodies still disagree it should be fast-tracked to SCOTUS. It takes a certain kind of trashy jurisprudence to say “oh well, I know one court says this party is likely to succeed on the merits and there is a risk of immediate and irreversible harm, but another court has the complete opposite position - that’s ok just let most people suffer that immediate irreversible harm while that gets hashed out in a long winded process that could take years”.
It also seems to me that congress could improve this by introducing additional conceptual inter-district appeals courts to address these specific issues when different districts have competing injunctions, but nobody trusts congress to ever do the right thing.
We aren’t talking about final rulings here, goddamnit, we’re talking about injunctions which are supposed to be saved, specifically, for when there’s a high probability of success and there’s irreversible harm if the party causing that harm is not blocked. There’s no reason that I can perceive to limit that harm-prevention measure to some tiny group of litigants without a specific reason. That applies doubly-so when the harm-causing party is explicitly targetting the wider population with its harmful measures.
4 Likes