Pain Threshold
Resident Half-wit. G Check proof. Cringe but in an endearing way. Real American Patriot. Full-Time Poaster.
- Sauer admitting to Justice Barrett that the Trump Administration has the “general practice” of following District Court Precedent is insane. He said “in the vast majority of cases” when the Administration is legally required to follow the opinion of EVERY CASE UNTIL IT IS APPEALED.
- Sauer has just effectively admitted to the Supreme Court that the Trump Administration is willing to and has already disobeyed the judgments of Article III Courts on purpose. This is absolutely insane…
- Sauer’s argument that Article III doesn’t empower nationwide injunctions and can only make judgments for relief of the Plaintiffs effectively overturns Marbury vs. Madison. What is striking down an Unconstitutional law/EO if not a nationwide injunction that applies to non-parties of the suit?
-
View full threadThe nj ag said that criteria should be made for issuing nationwide injunctions. But I thought John Roberts was sounding to side with the administration here.
- In what way? Would you mind explaining your thoughts because I didn’t personally hear that.
- No way, they'd rule in Trump's favor and abolish judicial review but the sad part is, it probably will not be unanimous.
- The way the Justices are behaving right now I’d say it’ll be either 7-2 or 6-3 against the Trump Administration depending on whether Kavanaugh votes with the Sith Lords Thomas and Alito or with the obviously correct answer.
- Sauer’s argument would necessitate the Supreme Court not be allowed to strike down Unconstitutional Laws, but instead would have to wait until every person injured by an Unconstitutional Law brought suit in court for remedy. This is fucking bonkers. Straight up asking SCOTUS to give up that power.
- The Trump Admin is straight up asking SCOTUS to allow unconstitutional laws/EOs to stand in effect, wait until each individual rights violation piles up, and to hear suit for each and every one of them. They’re telling SCOTUS that they should be allowed to violate the Constitution.
- Reminder that Trump is Constitutionally disqualified from holding office via Section III of the 14th Amendment because he attempted to commit an insurrection against the Constitution. Every moment Congress doesn’t enforce this is a millisecond they’re allowing a disqualified person to hold office.
-
View full threadThe argument that this clause is somehow "not self enforcing" seems bullshit to me. Courts should unilaterally set precedents on this unless Congress further specifies it by law.
- Yeah, it was obviously self-executing. To me, it’s clear that SCOTUS ruled not in relation to the text of the Constitution but ruled so as to not throw a wrench in the 2024 election. It was such a disgraceful and cowardly decision from all nine of them.
- I mean, the States used to be allowed to strike people from ballots over this but the Supreme Court ruled “we’re too scared about what might happen if we enforce the Constitution so therefore we won’t.” So I guess Congress gets to decide by simple majority if we even have a Constitution anymore.
