Originally published at: Trump Admin Admits It Could Game Court System Without Nationwide Injunctions - TPM – Talking Points Memo
Here’s an interesting hypothetical: the White House wins its nationwide injunction case before the Supreme Court. Judges can no longer issue these national holds on various forms of federal government action, or face an exceedingly high bar to do so. At the same time, the high court has not ruled on the core issue of…
2 Likes
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be
in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside
out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Frank Wilhoit
43 Likes
Sounds like Sauer advocates the “nanny nanny boo boo” theory of law.
12 Likes
Just shockingly evil. And a reminder that out of all the Trump people Stephen Miller is the absolute worst.
27 Likes
So, basically, the laws don’t apply to everybody, as we’ve been pretending for the past 224 plus years, only to those specific folks who have had a case decided in their name, for or against.
I think we’re going to need more lawyers and judges then.
20 Likes
Section 1 Rights
“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
… … … … … …
Not much more I can say except the Justices should read this… carefully. Esp. the first sentence.
18 Likes
States can’t “abridge the privileges or immunities of citzens,” but now, it appears, the Federal Government can do it with impunity.
15 Likes
Justice Jackson again bringing it home for the average viewer. Her ability to make court work real is a gift to all Americans.
29 Likes
The Founders probably thought that any evil group that overthrew the Republic would do it with force and at one time, then simply scrap the whole document. They probably didn’t think a bunch of evil swine would attempt to lawyer it out of existence a little at a time, picking at one word here or there.
23 Likes
“Sauer said eventually that a person injured by the government’s failure to comply with a Second Circuit precedent could file a lawsuit that eventually makes its way up to the Supreme Court.”
“Look, anyone who dies in ICE custody can just sue for resurrective relief.”
Trump official acknowledges 9 detainee deaths in ICE custody…
Todd Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency is focused on deporting the ‘worst of the worst.’
26 Likes
I am really sour on Sauer.
6 Likes
I strongly disagree with your post.
However, if you switch the first word from “Conservatism” to “Republicans” I completely agree.
Or to put another way, there is nothing “Conservative” about the current Republican Party and that includes the Republicans who currently dominate the Supreme Court. Today’s Republicans, as you correctly said, are above all else hypocrites with two sets of standards, one for themselves and another for everyone else.
Calling these hypocrites “Conservatives” indicates they have consistent standards and ideology and serves to give them credibility they do not deserve.
11 Likes
ICE is focused on being the worst of the worst.
7 Likes
If in the meantime we’ve eliminated habeas corpus, it’ll have to be possessive relief rather than resurrective.
3 Likes
This focus on district court judges is insane.
Federal law and policy are national. If the federal government is doing something illegal, they have to be stopped from doing it anywhere. Just as if they are doing law as they should, it has to apply everywhere.
The country isn’t a Confederacy … or is it?!?
11 Likes
And yet they still missed the most important point:
This administration insists that non-citizens have no right to access the courts. If the administration declares someone a non-citizen, how would they even be able to file a lawsuit to be declared a citizen?
The administration insists they are able to deport non-citizens without a hearing, much less a full lawsuit to declare someone a citizen.
This becomes even more problematical when you realize that the administration would apply the ruling retroactively… Can you prove your grandparents came to the country legally? No? Well, you’re not a citizen either and are liable to be deported to a prison camp in a third-world country.
14 Likes
They also didn’t expect the swinishly incompetent, cheap, and petty way the first overthrow was attempted would be rewarded by such a dangerously stupid public…who would vote the swine in again.
11 Likes
It can be assumed the lawless Trump regime would most definitely game any issue if there is any opportunity to do so. They are violating 2 Supreme Court decisions already on due process and facilitating the return of a wrongfully kidnapped man. Trump and his crooked lawyers think the law is optional.
13 Likes
Given that Donald’s grandfather was a German draft-dodger whose immigration status may be questionable, this may be entirely relevant and useful.
14 Likes
Not so fast:
Ravi Agrawal: Joanne, how do you imagine the Founding Fathers would interpret this week’s news?
Joanne Freeman: Well, they might say “I told you so.” If you read the personal letters, anything that they were writing in the founding era, it’s hard to say that the founders agreed on a lot, but they did agree that the greatest threat to any republic, but particularly a democratic republic, was a demagogue. The world was monarchies at the time and a democratic republic grounded on public opinion was experimental. What made these largely elitist founders nervous was that “the public” would be easily persuaded, warped, led astray by someone who could get their emotions riled up. That’s the vulnerability of anything democratic, that the people and their emotions can lead them astray. And historically speaking—going back to ancient Greece, ancient Rome—when they looked at republics, what they saw were demagogues saying anything that they possibly could to get the public’s emotions flowing, to woo the public, and then once they got power, doing whatever they wanted and becoming tyrants. They talked about that throughout the entire founding period when trying to evaluate politics in the first decade of the republic. That was what was on their mind. So, in a way, this is an easy question to answer because that would be the absolute first thing that they would say—“We told you. We told you that demagogue tendencies are the vulnerability, and now here you are.”
But on the “bright side:”
Joanne Freeman: Now, people also used to write to John Adams, the most self-aware founder with a sense of humor, to ask him what the founding was like. And his answer was almost always the same. He said, “Thank you for revering the founders. Thank you for including me. But if you think we were a golden, blessed generation, it’s going to be all downhill from here. We didn’t know what we were doing. We were improvising. We made mistakes.” He talks about watching a lot of very unhappy people sign the Declaration of Independence. And if people believe there was a golden era, every government that comes after that point will suffer in comparison. And that’s not the way to make this country run.
More good insights from waay back in November 2024:
Archived here.
13 Likes