The Supreme Court

[lvc]

"If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally...compliance with the law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative."

That's a scary-ass thing to contemplate. I guess Cormac McCarthy was right. War is God.

[Bi_3]

NOT ENDORSING THE TWEET, but the video seems relevant

[warehouse]

are they going to actually address the issue with the executive order? or just play bullshit legal games?

[Bi_3]

Not to dwell on this for much longer but I feel like this analysis can be extended to the entire N&D forum.

alexandriabrown
@alexthechick
(long tweet warning)

Super quick and dirty because I have neither the time nor the energy to get into the weeds of this right now.

Barrett's slap down of Jackson is the more textualist wing of the court telling Jackson that Critical Legal Studies is so intellectually barren that it's not even worth discussing.

So let me break that down. Textualism, very very very simplified, is a theory of Constitutional interpretation wherein the judge looks at the text of the Constitution and determines whether the language in the Constitution permits or denies whatever issue is in front of the Court. I cannot stress how greatly I am simplifying this.

Critical Legal Studies (CLS), on the other hand, more or less completely rejects textual considerations. Instead, the starting point is that all prior laws and precedents exist to uphold existing power structures. It is the job of judges who adhere to CLS to break down those structures and rule in a manner so as to lead to greater equity for those who have been and are marginalized in society. Again, this is very simplified. (I'm trying to explain it on its own terms, remember, explaining isn't endorsing)

Barrett's slap down of we aren't even going to respond to that is a rejection that a position presented under the theory of CLS is even worthy of consideration. It's a wholesale rejection of an entire branch of judicial thought as being worthy of consideration.

All the people snarking about how Jackson complains about legal technicalities and saying she is too stupid to understand those are wrong. It's not that she is stupid. It is that she rejects that legal technicalities have any bearing, at all, on how judges rule. She's complaining about those matters being of primary concern because she rejects that those should even be at issue at all. In fact, to the extent legal formalities are reviewed, those are to be presumed illegitimate.

This isn't just sniping at each other over personal distaste. This is an all out rejection of the entirety of the very method each other uses to view legal matters.

[spike]

Context never matters.

[epilogue]

HE IS NOT ENDORSING THE TWEET

[Bi_3]

HE IS NOT ENDORSING THE TWEET

Whatever she did, you didn’t deserve it.

[4/5]

This will be interesting: A federal judge issued a new nationwide block on Trump's birthright citizenship clause today. He certified a nationwide class that "will be comprised only of those deprived of citizenship" and issued an injunction against the order being enforced against born and unborn babies would be impacted.

In a concurring opinion in the Trump v. CASA case two weeks ago, Kavanaugh explicitly stated that class action lawsuits remained as option while in a separate concurrence Thomas warned judges not to issue a nationwide injunction under a different name.

[Bi_3]

The members of the nationwide class are whom exactly?

[4/5]

The members of the nationwide class are whom exactly?

It sounds like it will be made up of precisely anybody who is in danger of not receiving full citizenship rights at birth despite being born in the U.S.

It's why I mentioned the two concurrences. This feels very much like what Thomas warned judges not to do. His concurrence was only joined by Alito IIRC. But instead of calling it a nationwide or universal injunction he went the path Kavanaugh suggested: class action.

In this particular instance it seems very reasonable to me that they would constitute a class, but I wonder if SCOTUS will want to discourage judges from taking this route to have the same effect of the universal injunctions they just said they can't do.

[Bi_3]

The members of the nationwide class are whom exactly?

It sounds like it will be made up of precisely anybody who is in danger of not receiving full citizenship rights at birth despite being born in the U.S.

It's why I mentioned the two concurrences. This feels very much like what Thomas warned judges not to do. His concurrence was only joined by Alito IIRC. But instead of calling it a nationwide or universal injunction he went the path Kavanaugh suggested: class action.

In this particular instance it seems very reasonable to me that they would constitute a class, but I wonder if SCOTUS will want to discourage judges from taking this route to have the same effect of the universal injunctions they just said they can't do.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or suggesting you have to answer this here, but I don't get the class definition. Every unborn child on Earth that is not currently being delivered has the potential to be born under US jurisdiction if we include individuals who are undocumented. Couldn't anyone lie and claim they had a baby in US territory if we don't require some level of the US government to be aware of them being here? It doesn't seem rational.

The other part here is that looking at this more broadly, I'm not sure what secondary effects granting unborn children a legal entitlement like this will have on certain other contentious issues.

[oasisfan35]

In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially
Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not.

[oasisfan35]

Supreme Court strikes down tariffs