The president has more power, today, than he did yesterday morning. Thanks to the Supreme Court, he’s now free to do anything he wants, without having to worry about the interfering judiciary. If it takes forever for the SC to rule on the merit/constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Orders, it just helps him bake in his unconstitutional attacks on democracy in America. The SCOTUS, and its conservative majority, are therefore assisting Trump in establishing a dictatorship in America.
Granting more power to an individual who has made it clear he likes totalitarianism far better than a society that allows criticism of its president, is a clear indication that the conservatives are fine with granting as close to absolute power to a highly mentally disturbed human being, as they can. Leaning in toward absolute power for a president who is deeply, deeply disturbed; the conservatives on the SCOTUS like the unitary executive theory and approach and will push it right into Executive branch totalitarianism.
The fact that those 6 individuals are fine giving more power to a an unhinged authoritarian who brings anger, hatred and division to our body politic, identifies them as being 100% against the survival of democracy in America. They want an end to it….they will never admit it, but they are fine with fascism, if it means destroying the liberal tradition in America. The Rights of Man? Ha, poppycock!
Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion
www.theguardian.com
What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday’s
6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will.
As the supreme court upends precedent again and again, the liberal justices reveal the divisions within the legal body
www.theguardian.com
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an acidic sermon against the court’s 6-3 decision to end lower courts’ practice of issuing nationwide injunctions to block federal executive orders, reading her dissent directly from the bench in a move meant to highlight its importance.
The decision is seen as limiting the power of judges to halt or slow presidential orders, even those whose constitutionality has not yet been tested, such as Trump’s attempt to remove the right to automatic US citizenship for anyone born inside US borders.
“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” states Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
As opinion season ends in the first months of Donald Trump’s second presidency, the court’s decisions have expanded the power of the presidency and limited the power of lower courts to block Trump’s agenda.
The opinion in the birthright citizenship case,
Trump v Casa Inc, in which the court was silent on the underlying question about the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order, nonetheless undermines the rule of law, Sotomayor said.
Even though defending the order’s legality is “an impossible task” given the plain language of the 14th amendment, the court’s opinion means each person must challenge the order individually in states that are not a party to the suit, unless class-action status is granted.
In a concurring dissent, Jackson explained the burden it places on people to defend their rights in court.
“Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” Jackson’s dissent states. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law. In essence, the Court has now shoved lower court judges out of the way in cases where executive action is challenged, and has gifted the Executive with the prerogative of sometimes disregarding the law.”
Jackson added ominously, the ruling was an “existential threat to the rule of law”.
www.theatlantic.com
