Breaking News USA Suprmeme court rules

hollydolly

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions as it delivered a historic ruling in a case about the right to birthright citizenship.

It is a ruling that will have far-reaching consequences for those challenging other Trump administration policies in the future.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of The president with all six conservative justices - including the three he appointed - siding with the president.

Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years.





I don't want to break forum rules.... so you all might want to have a look at your latest news ..for this story
 

Last edited:
The news being reported here is that today's ruling does not specifically address your statement in your paragraph about automatic citizenship. My understanding is these injunctions, by district judges, are restricted to their district and cannot be nationwide. These district judges would no longer be able to impede the executive branch in implementing policy. The process to dispute legislation is still in effect but must go thru normal channels.

It is my understanding the Supreme Court will take up the issue of the 14th Amendment referenced in the original post in the near future.
 

Last edited:
The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, meaning they can't block federal policies across the entire country. However, district judges can still issue injunctions that apply within their specific district or to the specific parties involved in the case.

The SC also stated that birth-right citizenship can be enforced by the President.

And, The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that a group of Maryland parents have a right to opt their elementary-school-aged children out of instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes.

And, The Supreme Court ruled that states can enforce laws requiring pornographic websites to verify users' ages, upholding a Texas law requiring age verification to prevent minors from accessing adult content online. The 6-3 decision rejected First Amendment challenges from the adult entertainment industry, arguing the laws do not restrict adults' access to legal content.

And, The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing them to revoke the temporary legal status of over 500,000 immigrants, including those from Haiti, under the humanitarian parole program. This decision means these individuals, who were previously protected from deportation and allowed to work in the US, can now be subject to deportation. The ruling affects migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

Busy last day for the Supreme Court before going on recess.
 
Been There said:
But, they have a staff of about 500 that works their butts off.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from what I know, each Justice is permitted to hire up to 4 Law clerks, who we all know does the research and opinions, IMO. Of course other Adminstrative staff. The Justice is given authorship credit.
 
Irishdude said:
I'm no fan of the current administration, but it seemed crazy to me that a district judge could block a presidential executive order on a national basis.
Click to expand...

The issue is deeper. Stuff the Supreme Court with your political supporters, and get your way.

The legal system isn't a simple black and white thing. But checks and balances are important. Better that than anything else.
 
hollydolly said:
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions as it delivered a historic ruling in a case about the right to birthright citizenship.

It is a ruling that will have far-reaching consequences for those challenging other Trump administration policies in the future.

The court ruled 6-3 in favor of The president with all six conservative justices - including the three he appointed - siding with the president.

Under the directive, children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens, radically altering the interpretation of the Constitution's 14th Amendment for over 150 years.





I don't want to break forum rules.... so you all might want to have a look at your latest news ..for this story
Click to expand...

If only the usurption of power of the legislation by executive orders would be addressed too, and that didn’t start with the current president. But it is a cancer that needs to be checked.
 
VaughanJB said:
The issue is deeper. Stuff the Supreme Court with your political supporters, and get your way.

The legal system isn't a simple black and white thing. But checks and balances are important. Better that than anything else.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you. But the mess we're in goes even deeper than the current president.
 
Irishdude said:
I don't disagree with you. But the mess we're in goes even deeper than the current president.
Click to expand...
Very true. None of these rulings are aimed only at one President. They are aimed at the institution of the Presidency and the Executive Branch. I am not judging if the rulings are good or bad. Just whom they are aimed at.
 
Last edited:
Brookswood said:
Very true. None of these rulings are aimed only at one President. They are aimed at the institution of the Presidency and the Executive Branch. I am not judging if the rulings are good or bad. Just whom they are aimed at.
Click to expand...

It actually applies to the Judicial branch and their rulings on Nationwide Injunctions.
 
Irishdude said:
I don't disagree with you. But the mess we're in goes even deeper than the current president.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are many factors to just about anything. However, you have to look at the specific situation which caused someone, or group, to elevate to the Supreme Court. But yes, this is but one of many factors. What we tend to ignore (I won't say forget) is that things always swing back the other way. All the powers granted now will at some time be given to "the other side". So yeah, we should worry.
 
VaughanJB said:
All the powers granted now will at some time be given to "the other side". So yeah, we should worry.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I have always wondered why people who are supposed to be so smart think that certain coercive powers will be limited to just people on their side, who think like them and have their values. Does it never occur to them that the other side might someday have the coercive power?

There’s a great scene in A Man for All Seasons where a self-righteous, arrogant man is brought face to face with this reality.

A Man for All Seasons (1960)​

  • Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
Click to expand...

 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top