Noticing cons getting a little mouthy today fresh of SCOTUS birthright ruling
| Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 06/30/25 | | Crawly scourge upon the earth shrine | 06/30/25 | | Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 06/30/25 | | Fluffy frozen ticket booth | 06/30/25 | | big bistre school cafeteria | 06/30/25 | | mischievous alpha institution | 06/30/25 | | Burgundy sticky forum therapy | 06/30/25 | | mischievous alpha institution | 06/30/25 | | Drab Jewess Roast Beef | 06/30/25 | | Topaz Station | 07/01/25 | | cracking sanctuary hissy fit | 07/01/25 | | Crawly scourge upon the earth shrine | 07/01/25 | | Fluffy frozen ticket booth | 06/30/25 | | Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 06/30/25 | | violent mewling parlour boiling water | 06/30/25 | | Light trip address | 06/30/25 | | Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 06/30/25 | | Light trip address | 06/30/25 | | Flickering house | 06/30/25 | | hairraiser chest-beating principal's office | 06/30/25 | | adulterous jap | 06/30/25 | | Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 06/30/25 | | adulterous jap | 06/30/25 | | Crawly scourge upon the earth shrine | 06/30/25 | | violent mewling parlour boiling water | 06/30/25 | | adulterous jap | 06/30/25 | | Ruby Diverse Point Prole | 07/10/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 30th, 2025 2:04 PM Author: adulterous jap
It's kind of funny that the birthright EO was like the WORST vehicle to get a good (administration-favoring) ruling on universal injunctions.
The problems with universal injunctions are:
(1) non-reciprocity (different plaintiffs can keep suing and losing, but if the US loses once, it's bound) -- the US lost every single one of these suits below;
(2) forum shopping, which compounds the problem of point #1 -- most of these suits were stuck being filed in border states;
(3) the availability of a nationally binding rule from scotus (obviating the need for a nationally binding injunction at the district court level) -- because the US always lost, it just didn't take up the case on appeal, so no scotus case law will ever get created if the US just knows that said case law will inevitably be bad (as would be the case with a policy that's flagrantly unconstitutional): this was literally true of the instant case, where the US lost on everything below, but elected to only seek cert on the nationwide-injunction question, and not the merits of the EO;
(4) the availability of at least Circuit-binding rules from the COAs -- SG showed up at OA and surprised everyone by saying for the first time "yeah we usually respect circuit court precedent within that circuit, but that's a discretionary policy and we don't always follow it" (obviously the guy has something specific in mind, because that's a real inconvenient time to soften this policy);
(5) "a single district judge overruling the potus" -- I think this (meaning the merits of the EO) turned out to be like a 17-0 vote of different district and circuit judges (20-0 if you count the scotus dissenters, who were not shy about expressing their thoughts on the merits).
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744570&forum_id=2)#49060796) |
 |
Date: June 30th, 2025 2:13 PM Author: adulterous jap
My big hope is that it opens the judicial overton window to at least CONGRESS being able to narrow its own "jurisdiction thereof" (the 14th Am. term).
My understanding is that even that position was a minority view in the pre-2015 scholarship -- which, btw, can we all agree is the only scholarship that can be trusted on this shit, as any lib law professor writing on this issue in 2019 might as well be delivering a crying screed on MSNBC -- but it looks good af in comparison.
If scotus gives us that, at least senate dems will know that if they ever pull the trigger and eliminate the filibuster then they'll need to squeeze every last bit of hard work out of their housekeepers and nannies in the next 2 years.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744570&forum_id=2)#49060827) |
|
|