Pirate's Cove

This is so stupid it’s possible that Ketanji Brown Jackson and her Gen Z interns actually wrote it

Opinion – The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott

In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of so-called “universal injunctions” as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of “originalism.”

In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself.

To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration.

BTW, this decision could help future Democrats from being the recipients of nationwide injunctions. But, here we go

But it also does grave damage to the court itself — Trump v. Casa now takes its place among the high court’s most infamous rulings. As Stephen Lubet says, it returns us to the world of its discredited Dred Scott decision, which found that the rights of Black people depended on where they lived. Just like Blacks in the antebellum world who had one status in free states and another in slave states, immigrants and others may now find themselves in a legal nether land.

To thoroughly appreciate the impact of Trump v. Casa, it is important to remember that “universal injunctions” allow courts to grant immediate relief that benefits not only the party who requests them but also anyone harmed by an action of the government. Individuals or organizations can go to court seeking such orders while they pursue further legal action.

Except, that is not the way the U.S. Constitution is set up. What if, say, a Republican federal judge in Alabama decided to rule against abortion on demand and instituted a federal injunction, saying that abortion is now illegal in the entire U.S. until such time as a higher court rules differently? Or that every citizen 18 and up now has the right to concealed carry? Or that environmental reviews on projects are no longer necessary? You’d be fine with that, right, Democrats?

As Sotomayor argues, the majority now holds that “No matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.” Sotomayor condemns her colleagues’ attachment to a “rigid historical test” that allows “a grave and unsupported diminution of the judicial power of equity,” and chastises the majority for its “complicity” in the president’s “‘mockery’ of our constitution.”

We’re either a nation of Law, based on the Constitution, or a nation of Men, based on feelings. Also, this is why the federal government shouldn’t have so much damned power over states and citizens, something the Constitution never called for and never wanted.

Her opinion conjured the jurisprudence of the Dred Scott era when it warned that the court’s new decision creates a “two-tiered scheme” in which someone’s citizenship status depends on whether they live in a state where an injunction has been issued or a state where no court ruling has been made. Jackson echoed Sotomayor in her worry that the court is acquiescing in the administration’s desire “to operate in two different zones moving forward: one in which it is required to follow the law (because a particular plaintiff has secured a personal injunction prohibiting its unlawful conduct) and another in which you can choose to violate the law with respect to certain people (those who have yet to sue).”

But, citizenship is not determined by federal judges, it is determined by the laws as passed by the duly elected Congress. Birthright citizenship is not settled: if you are a member of a foreign diplomatic group, any child you have born in the US will not be a US citizen. That was determined by US law, pretty much following the way most Western nations viewed it prior to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, the latter of which was never meant to apply to foreign citizens visiting the US who are subject to the jurisdiction of being citizens of another country.

Regardless, there is no authority given to these judges to implement nationwide injunctions because they do not like a president’s policies, and, you know Democrats are losing badly when they have to trot out comparing it to Dred Scott, a case that ended in 1857, when times were vastly different. Doesn’t mean it was a good decision, just a different time. And 99% of US citizens have no idea about the details, just that It Was Bad.

Read: Moonbats: SCOTUS Decision On Judges Not Being All Powerful Is Like The Dred Scott Decision »