Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

But why even go through that appeals process?

If SCOTUS rules on upholding birthright citizenship, makes it clear that it the law of the land, there is no workaround, no loophole no one is thinking there's still a chance it may happen

As it stands now some are thinking there's a chance this may still happen

and whatever the federal appeals court rules people will wait to see if SCOTUS will hear the case

And if they do they'll wait and see what SCOTUS will rule

And who knows how long that timeline will be, even just the appeals court process

All of which could be avoided if SCOTUS makes their ruling

And while waiting for all that to happen, anyone who is abducted and shipped off to an unknown country will be irreversibly forked. There is no way to unfork that once it happens to someone. And that is exactly what the 6 justices intentionally just allowed.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

i think its procedural - SCOTUS wont "on their own" just rule on another issue that hasnt exhausted its way thru lower courts.

They didn't have to rule. They could have simply affirmed, by comment only, of the constitutional right of birth right citizenship. All 6 of these justices have made a habit of commenting on issues not directly related to the case they are ruling on. That they chose to not comment this time on such an important issue stands out for what it is. Their silence is complicity.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's telling that the Court's Opinion never address the substantive reason for the District Courts' universal injunctions.

The District Courts further determined that only injunctions blocking the Citizenship Order’s enforcement nationwide would completely redress respondents’ injuries. For the organizational plaintiffs, the Maryland District Court explained that those plaintiffs have “‘over 680,000 members . . . who reside in all 50 U.S. states’” and “hundreds of them expect to give birth soon.”

Justices Sotomayor & Jackson referenced the District Courts ruling multiple times and the fact that the Appellate Courts allowed those rulings to stand.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

My favorite paragraph from the opinion

“We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

You've just made it obvious that you are a full believer and supporter of tyranny and you are on a mission to deceive anyone you can about the full truth.

That paragraph is a lie. There is not two centuries worth of precedent that says courts can't issue nationwide injunctions. The courts have done that for my entire lifetime against presidents from both parties.

There is nothing imperial about the judicial system blocking actions by the president that appear to violate the constitution. That is their constitutional mandate. That is them doing their job to protect us from tyrants like Trump and his supporters.

Funny how those same 6 justices had no problem repeatedly overturning decades of precedent when it fit their tyrannical agenda.

 

[MT15]

It wasn’t the issue before them.

The issue was lower courts issuing universal injunctions.

If there emerges a party denied citizenship because of parents immigration status then it will work its way to the courts.

They can still affirm it in a footnote. They deliberately chose not to do so.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

and this is why Barret's assertion is wrong:

Talk about "skipping over the part"???

Telling partial truths to lie and decieve. It's what Sendai does all the time to give cover and make excuses for the illegal and unconstitutional actions of tyrant Trump and his supporters. People mimic the behavior of the people they admire, so it's not wonder that Sendai does the same thing tyrant Trump and his supporters do, like the 6 supporters on the Supreme Court.

It's not just monkey hear no evil, see no evil; it's also monkey see, monkey do.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

The federal district court judge has the power to provide remedy for the case at hand. That remedy applies to the jurisdiction of the district court judge providing the remedy. Congress gave the district court judge jurisdiction over a specific district. Not the entire country. Same for federal appeals courts. Their rulings apply to their congressionally defined jurisdiction. Quite often the Supreme Court takes up cases where there are federal appeals court rulings are in conflict. Ultimately, the only court with jurisdiction over the entire country is the supreme court.

More lies by way of half truths. I'm about to be 60. My entire life, federal courts have issued nationwide injunctions against presidents of both parties. Not once has either president ever argued that those courts didn't have the constitutional or congressional authority to do that.

The precedent for at least 50 years has been that federal courts can issue nationwide injunctions, anyone saying otherwise is not telling the truth and they know they are not telling the truth.

 

[Dragon]

The federal district court judge has the power to provide remedy for the case at hand. That remedy applies to the jurisdiction of the district court judge providing the remedy. Congress gave the district court judge jurisdiction over a specific district. Not the entire country. Same for federal appeals courts. Their rulings apply to their congressionally defined jurisdiction. Quite often the Supreme Court takes up cases where there are federal appeals court rulings are in conflict. Ultimately, the only court with jurisdiction over the entire country is the supreme court.

Remember s U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, appointed by Donald Trump to the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo

• April 7, 2023: Issued a preliminary injunction suspending the FDA’s decades‑old approval of mifepristone, effectively banning its sale nationwide
• January 16, 2025: Allowed the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to challenge federal regulations that permit telehealth prescriptions, extended usage up to 10 weeks, and fewer in‑person doctor visits

You supported this ruling as far as I remember - even though a district judge in Texas according to you, should have no jurisdiction over Kansas, Idaho and Missouri. as well as all other states in the first case.

 

[MT15]

As already said, precedent here is that lower courts have been making nationwide rulings for decades - until now.

This is simply a thinly disguised way to give cover for more of Project 2025 to go forward. If something is unconstitutional in one district, it is unconstitutional in the entire country.

Each district isn’t entitled to their own version of constitutionality.

It’s a ridiculous argument put forth by partisans on an activist court.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

Remember s U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, appointed by Donald Trump to the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo

• April 7, 2023: Issued a preliminary injunction suspending the FDA’s decades‑old approval of mifepristone, effectively banning its sale nationwide
• January 16, 2025: Allowed the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to challenge federal regulations that permit telehealth prescriptions, extended usage up to 10 weeks, and fewer in‑person doctor visits

You supported this ruling as far as I remember - even though a district judge in Texas according to you, should have no jurisdiction over Kansas, Idaho and Missouri. as well as all other states in the first case.

His hypocrisy and agenda are clearly undeniable now. For the past few days almost everything he has said on every subject has either had internal contradictions or has contradict other things he has said. And he never responds when those contradictions are called out. He's not doing anything but making drive by posts.

 

[J-DONK]

As already said, precedent here is that lower courts have been making nationwide rulings for decades - until now.

This is simply a thinly disguised way to give cover for more of Project 2025 to go forward. If something is unconstitutional in one district, it is unconstitutional in the entire country.

Each district isn’t entitled to their own version of constitutionality.

It’s a ridiculous argument put forth by partisans on an activist court.

My thing is you can't go back on this. I don't want to see the SC suddenly tell us nationwide injuctions are back when a Democrat becomes president.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The courts are going to inundated with cases just like these for the foreseeable future. SCOTUS has invited Judicial gridlock, just as they planned.

 

[MT15]

My thing is you can't go back on this. I don't want to see the SC suddenly tell us nationwide injuctions are back when a Democrat becomes president.

You know they will. They won’t even bat an eye.

 

[J-DONK]

The courts are going to inundated with cases just like these for the foreseeable future. SCOTUS has invited Judicial gridlock, just as they planned.

I mean I'm kinda shocked they picked this case. The Democrats rightfully pointed out that this case has lost everywhere they have been sued.

 

[J-DONK]

You know they will. They won’t even bat an eye.

Yeah as much as I don't like this. If I don't have to care about that one Texas judge conseratives always file with, fine.

 

[MT15]

Yeah as much as I don't like this. If I don't have to care about that one Texas judge conseratives always file with, fine.

But you know it won’t be handled consistently. They will uphold decisions from the lower courts that they like and use this ruling to strike down ones they don’t. This is by far the most partisan activist court in my lifetime. And it’s also corrupt - so there’s that as well.

 

[Sendai]

As already said, precedent here is that lower courts have been making nationwide rulings for decades - until now.

This is simply a thinly disguised way to give cover for more of Project 2025 to go forward. If something is unconstitutional in one district, it is unconstitutional in the entire country.

Each district isn’t entitled to their own version of constitutionality.

It’s a ridiculous argument put forth by partisans on an activist court.

And the Supreme Court got tired of lower courts doing that. You’re certainly welcome to try and show that Congress granted lower district courts power over the entire nation but good luck with that. Even Justice Kagan had expressed a disapproval in the past.

 

[Sendai]

Remember s U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, appointed by Donald Trump to the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo

• April 7, 2023: Issued a preliminary injunction suspending the FDA’s decades‑old approval of mifepristone, effectively banning its sale nationwide
• January 16, 2025: Allowed the states of Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri to challenge federal regulations that permit telehealth prescriptions, extended usage up to 10 weeks, and fewer in‑person doctor visits

You supported this ruling as far as I remember - even though a district judge in Texas according to you, should have no jurisdiction over Kansas, Idaho and Missouri. as well as all other states in the first case.

I don’t recall supporting that. I did make statement that the Congress lacks the authority to outlaw abortions. That it belongs to the states.