Live audio of SCOTUS Birthright case oral argument
| aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | pink national | 05/15/25 | | pink national | 05/15/25 | | Hateful Marvelous Headpube | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | Beady-eyed toilet seat | 05/15/25 | | pink national | 05/15/25 | | Magenta irate windowlicker stag film | 05/15/25 | | aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | Vermilion filthy senate | 05/15/25 | | Slimy turdskin hell | 05/15/25 | | pink national | 05/15/25 | | shivering range ceo | 05/15/25 | | Gold Curious Stage Pocket Flask | 05/15/25 | | Beady-eyed toilet seat | 05/15/25 | | Gold Curious Stage Pocket Flask | 05/15/25 | | concupiscible idiot wrinkle | 05/15/25 | | Gold Curious Stage Pocket Flask | 05/15/25 | | Harsh Unholy Base | 05/15/25 | | navy striped hyena stage | 05/15/25 | | Trip corner coffee pot | 05/15/25 | | Cowardly Codepig | 05/15/25 | | alcoholic doobsian house clown | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | Harsh Unholy Base | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | Harsh Unholy Base | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | Harsh Unholy Base | 05/15/25 | | Big Menage Potus | 05/15/25 | | claret laughsome trailer park | 05/15/25 | | navy striped hyena stage | 05/15/25 | | aqua diverse nursing home | 05/15/25 | | Slimy turdskin hell | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | Slimy turdskin hell | 05/15/25 | | navy striped hyena stage | 05/15/25 | | Slimy turdskin hell | 05/15/25 | | khaki cracking dopamine | 05/15/25 | | Cowardly Codepig | 05/15/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 15th, 2025 11:46 AM Author: khaki cracking dopamine
Kagan's Q was the one I would have started with (can't believe it took this long): only losers are allowed to appeal, and all you've ever done is lose below (and that will be the case with all egregious violations of the Constitution), so WHY THE FUCK would this case ever get in front of scotus for a nationwide ruling you would respect?
Just keep losing a handful of individual cases and having a double- to triple-digit number of new citizens, while deporting everyone else who can't afford a lawyer.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5725328&forum_id=2#48933392) |
 |
Date: May 15th, 2025 12:00 PM Author: khaki cracking dopamine
This case is not actually about birthright citizenship; it's about nationwide injunctions. The SG is arguing that such injunctions aren't allowed, and that any relief in a case needs to be limited to the individual plaintiff(s) actually before the court. On questioning, the SG said that they "might" view an adverse circuit-level decision as binding within that circuit, and that once SCOTUS ruled on an individual suit, they would view that as binding on the executive nationwide (meaning that they would no longer require every individual to sue personally). (Btw, why this is the case is not clear: even scotus's decision would technically be limited to the named plaintiffs. It would just be Final.)
The thing is, when the executive is flagrantly violating the law -- the example that keeps getting used in this argument is the seizure of all guns in the US -- it'd be entirely up to the government whether the case got up to scotus at all, since the government would always lose at the district court level and wouldn't want to appeal a loss that they know would just produce bad precedent on appeal, when they inevitably lost there, too. In the hypo, you'd just let a couple hundred people sue (either paying their own lawyers or getting a pro bono group to rep them individually), and win, and give them *their* guns back, but keep everyone else's who can't get a lawyer.
This is, as kagan notes, not really a hypothetical: the government has in fact lost every single case below here, and we are currently in the supreme court on a cert petition where the government deliberately declined to seek review of the merits.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5725328&forum_id=2#48933440) |
|
|