Supreme Court Blocks Federal Judges Ruling In Favor Of Birthright Citizenship.

[Foxfyre]

I for one am in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship. I am more in favor of taking all the illegal invaders who spit out anchor babies in this country and dropping them off in the middle of the ocean. With no flotation devices.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. The supreme court basically said that a Federal Judge ruling to keep birthright citizenship couldn't impede what Trump is trying to do nationwide. But the core function of a Federal Judge is to see to it that the Constitution is followed. And like it or not, the 14th amendment exists as part of the Constitution. And its wording is clear. Unless that amendment can be repealed, it should be obeyed.

This is yet another reason to vote Democrat in the upcoming 2026 mid term elections. Because I was reading that with a large enough of a majority, Congress can impeach any sitting judge on the supreme court. What would give them the right to do so? Having a supreme court judge go against what the Constitution says is justification enough.

You probably noticed that the supreme court didn't take up this issue themselves. They just said what a Federal Judge could or couldn't do. I want the supreme court jesters to take up this issue themselves! Is the 14th Amendment in the Constitution? Yes. Will they uphold the Constitution? YES or NO!!!

The meaning of the 14th Amendment is not clear when the original intent of the 'under the jurisdiction clause' meant one thing to those who wrote and passed the amendment and means something different to liberal Democrats who do not want original intent to be considered.

 

[Darkwind]

We shall see. Representatives in a representative democracy. The US House and Senate, both houses, chambers of the Congress can turn Dem. we shall see

We shall see, indeed. The Senate won't lose enough seats to the radical left to get a conviction. An impeachment by the House would be worthless paper.

However, one thing is abundantly clear. The voter will not be removing Trump from office since he will not be running for another term.

 

[Dante]

AI:

under the jurisdiction clause

The meaning of the 14th Amendment is not clear when the original intent of the 'under the jurisdiction clause' meant one thing to those who wrote and passed the amendment and means something different to liberal Democrats who do not want original intent to be considered.

AI: under the jurisdiction clause
In the context of the 14th Amendment, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" essentially means being under the complete authority of the United States, acknowledging no allegiance to any other nation or power

 

[Dante]

We shall see, indeed. The Senate won't lose enough seats to the radical left to get a conviction. An impeachment by the House would be worthless paper.

However, one thing is abundantly clear. The voter will not be removing Trump from office since he will not be running for another term.

Why I said "we shall see"

 

[Darkwind]

Why I said "we shall see"

Then maybe don't use language that can be construed as a death threat.


Perplexity AI:

Yes, "to 86 someone" can sometimes mean to kill them, especially in the context of crime or gangster slang. While the most common meaning is to remove, reject, or get rid of someone (such as kicking them out of a bar or ending a relationship), in certain contexts—particularly in movies, crime novels, or among criminals—the phrase can be used as a euphemism for murder.

Context Matters​

• Everyday Use: Usually just means to remove, fire, or reject.
• Criminal/Underworld Slang: Can mean to kill or eliminate someone.

Example:

• "If he talks to the cops, we’ll have to 86 him." (Here, it implies killing.)

Note:
The "kill" meaning is less common in everyday conversation and is more associated with dramatic or criminal contexts.

Summary:
While "86" usually means to get rid of or reject, it can also mean "to kill" in certain contexts, especially in crime-related slang.

 

[Dante]

Then maybe don't use language that can be construed as a death threat.

Nonsense. Nobody in their right mind ever considered being told they were being "86th" to be considered a death threat.

Just because weirdos try and change meanings....

 

[Dante]

Then maybe don't use language that can be construed as a death threat.


Criminal/Underworld Slang: Can mean to kill or eliminate someone.

So Trump and his allies live in a world where things they say are criminal underworld slang?

thank you

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Once you leave the western hemisphere, virtually no countries have birthright citizenship. Why is that?

 

[Dante]

Then maybe don't use language that can be construed as a death threat.


Perplexity AI:

Yes, "to 86 someone" can sometimes mean to kill them, especially in the context of crime or gangster slang. While the most common meaning is to remove, reject, or get rid of someone (such as kicking them out of a bar or ending a relationship), in certain contexts—particularly in movies, crime novels, or among criminals—the phrase can be used as a euphemism for murder.

Context Matters​

• Everyday Use: Usually just means to remove, fire, or reject.
• Criminal/Underworld Slang: Can mean to kill or eliminate someone.

Example:

• "If he talks to the cops, we’ll have to 86 him." (Here, it implies killing.)

Note:
The "kill" meaning is less common in everyday conversation and is more associated with dramatic or criminal contexts.

Summary:
While "86" usually means to get rid of or reject, it can also mean "to kill" in certain contexts, especially in crime-related slang.

So when Trump's cohorts referred to him as "The Boss" we should see that as honoring to a criminal Kingpin..

thank you

 

[Dante]

Once you leave the western hemisphere, virtually no countries have birthright citizenship. Why is that?

They have universal healthcare and great vacations and sick pay and...

 

[Seymour Flops]

I for one am in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship. I am more in favor of taking all the illegal invaders who spit out anchor babies in this country and dropping them off in the middle of the ocean. With no flotation devices.

But there is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. The supreme court basically said that a Federal Judge ruling to keep birthright citizenship couldn't impede what Trump is trying to do nationwide. But the core function of a Federal Judge is to see to it that the Constitution is followed. And like it or not, the 14th amendment exists as part of the Constitution. And its wording is clear. Unless that amendment can be repealed, it should be obeyed.

This is yet another reason to vote Democrat in the upcoming 2026 mid term elections. Because I was reading that with a large enough of a majority, Congress can impeach any sitting judge on the supreme court. What would give them the right to do so? Having a supreme court judge go against what the Constitution says is justification enough.

You probably noticed that the supreme court didn't take up this issue themselves. They just said what a Federal Judge could or couldn't do. I want the supreme court jesters to take up this issue themselves! Is the 14th Amendment in the Constitution? Yes. Will they uphold the Constitution? YES or NO!!!

The Supreme Court would have to address the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injuctions at some point. Maybe it should have long ago.

It has certainly been talked about for decades, given the left's strategy of judge shopping an issue and getting such a ruling from a judge specifically chosen for his or her ideology. That strategy has come to the forefront in Lawfare 2.0, the Democrats' attempt to stop the Trump presidency from implementing the Trump policy. Such forum shopping has led to more than 100 injuctions against Trump's efforts, more than a dozen of them universal injuctions.

But the USSC could not rule on Universal Injuctions without a case in which a universal injuction was issued. If the judge had not issued a universal injunction in a case about birthright citizenship, then the court would not have ruled on universal injunctions in a case about birthright citizenship.

But likely they would have ruled against universal injuctions in some other case, maybe about DOGE, or deportations, or pardons, or any of the other issues that the lawfare against the Trump administration addresses.

Sooner or later, they will give the answer about the 14th amendment and no matter how they rule, some will say they are completely wrong.

 

[mudwhistle]

Wrong. Post a mention where the opinion supports eliminating it

I just ******* said they punted on totally eliminating it, dipshit.

 

[Highlight]

It is NOT their job. That is the job of the SCOTUS, which is the ONLY equal part of the Judiciary with the other branches.

Lower courts are authorized by Congress and as such, are part of Congress.

ONLY the Supreme Court is considered a co-equal branch.

Well I did an AI search. I asked if it was the job of a Federal Judge to see to it that the Constitution is followed. You can agree or disagree with it. But this is the answer it gave me. "Yes, it is the job of a federal judge to ensure that the Constitution is followed. Federal judges are responsible for interpreting the law and applying it to the cases before them, which includes ensuring that the Constitution is upheld. The Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the federal courts, and federal judges are tasked with deciding cases and controversies in a neutral and objective way, including the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The Supreme Court, in particular, has the authority to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional through the power of judicial review, which is a critical part of maintaining the Constitution's supremacy."

So as you can see, when it comes to upholding the laws of the Constitution, it isn't just up to the Supreme Court. If necessary, they only have the final say. Up until then, it is the job of the Federal Courts to decide if an action is constitutional or not.

 

[Highlight]

The Supreme Court would have to address the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injuctions at some point. Maybe it should have long ago.

It has certainly been talked about for decades, given the left's strategy of judge shopping an issue and getting such a ruling from a judge specifically chosen for his or her ideology. That strategy has come to the forefront in Lawfare 2.0, the Democrats' attempt to stop the Trump presidency from implementing the Trump policy. Such forum shopping has led to more than 100 injuctions against Trump's efforts, more than a dozen of them universal injuctions.

But the USSC could not rule on Universal Injuctions without a case in which a universal injuction was issued. If the judge had not issued a universal injunction in a case about birthright citizenship, then the court would not have ruled on universal injunctions in a case about birthright citizenship.

But likely they would have ruled against universal injuctions in some other case, maybe about DOGE, or deportations, or pardons, or any of the other issues that the lawfare against the Trump administration addresses.

Sooner or later, they will give the answer about the 14th amendment and no matter how they rule, some will say they are completely wrong.

You might find my AI search reply answer in post #33 to be of interest.

 

[Darkwind]

Well I did an AI search. I asked if it was the job of a Federal Judge to see to it that the Constitution is followed. You can agree or disagree with it. But this is the answer it gave me. "Yes, it is the job of a federal judge to ensure that the Constitution is followed. Federal judges are responsible for interpreting the law and applying it to the cases before them, which includes ensuring that the Constitution is upheld. The Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the federal courts, and federal judges are tasked with deciding cases and controversies in a neutral and objective way, including the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The Supreme Court, in particular, has the authority to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional through the power of judicial review, which is a critical part of maintaining the Constitution's supremacy."

So as you can see, when it comes to upholding the laws of the Constitution, it isn't just up to the Supreme Court. If necessary, they only have the final say. Up until then, it is the job of the Federal Courts to decide if an action is constitutional or not.

I said, just as this did, that District Judges do use the Constitution to adjudicate the cases before them.

However, ONLY the SCOTUS has the authority to issue a nationwide injunction.

They just reinforced that with their ruling.

Perplexity AI:

Authority Over District Judges​

Federal District Judges
Federal district judges are indeed under the authority of Congress in significant respects, primarily because Congress created the lower federal courts, including district courts, under its constitutional powers. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" inferior courts beneath the Supreme Court1. This means Congress decides whether such courts exist, how many there are, their jurisdiction, and their structure123.
Congress also determines:

• The number of district judgeships
• The boundaries and organization of the district courts
• The rules of procedure and jurisdiction for these courts
• The funding and resources allocated to the judiciary23

Judicial Independence
However, once appointed, federal district judges are constitutionally protected in their core functions. They hold office during "good Behaviour" (effectively life tenure) and their salaries cannot be diminished during their continuance in office, which ensures judicial independence from political pressures, including from Congress12. Congress cannot remove judges except through impeachment and conviction, and cannot reduce their pay as a means of control12.

Administrative and Supervisory Authority

While Congress establishes and structures the courts, the day-to-day supervision and administration of judges is managed within the judiciary itself, often under the oversight of higher courts or chief judges, not directly by Congress42. Congress does not direct judicial decisions or interfere in specific cases.

Summary Table: Congressional Authority vs. Judicial Independence

Creation of courts	Yes (can create/abolish lower courts)	No
Number of judges	Yes	No
Jurisdiction and structure	Yes	No
Appointment and confirmation	Yes (Senate confirms nominees)	No
Tenure and salary protection	No (protected by Constitution)	Yes
Case decisions	No	Yes
Impeachment	Yes (removal for misconduct)	No

Conclusion​

Federal district judges are under the authority of Congress in terms of the creation, structure, and jurisdiction of their courts, as well as the number of judgeships and the confirmation process123. However, once appointed, district judges operate independently in their judicial functions, with constitutional protections for tenure and salary that limit Congress's control over their decisions and employment12. Thus, while Congress is the source of their office and can shape the judiciary’s framework, it does not exercise direct authority over the actions or rulings of individual district judges.

1. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-4/ALDE_00013560/
2. The Relationship between the Federal Courts and the Two Congressional Judiciary Committees – Open Judicial Politics
3. The U.S. District Courts and the Federal Judiciary | Federal Judicial Center
4. 201 Pa. Code Chapter 6. Magisterial District Judges
5. About Magisterial District Judges - Special Court Judges Association of Pennsylvania
6. About U.S. District Courts
7. Magisterial District Judges | Minor Courts | Courts | Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania
8. Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges: Effective December 1, 2014 – Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania
9. 201 Pa. Code Rule 605. Supervision of Magisterial District Courts by President Judges.
10. A Statutory Oddity

All this means is that ONLY the SCOTUS has the legal authority to issue Nationwide injunctions.

 

[Highlight]

The meaning of the 14th Amendment is not clear when the original intent of the 'under the jurisdiction clause' meant one thing to those who wrote and passed the amendment and means something different to liberal Democrats who do not want original intent to be considered.

I don't know what this "under the jurisdiction clause" is. But isn't the entire nation under the jurisdiction of the Constitution? Now for those who know, what the 14th Amendment was all about was to give citizenship to freed negro slaves. Not let any foreigner come here, have a baby and have that baby be a U.S. citizen. Which by default would make the parents citizens as well. If only Lincoln hadn't been assassinated. Because his plan was to send most of the ex-slaves to Panama. And the 14th Amendment would never have existed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You might find my AI search reply answer in post #33 to be of interest.

I'll respond to it, thanks for point it out:

Well I did an AI search. I asked if it was the job of a Federal Judge to see to it that the Constitution is followed. You can agree or disagree with it. But this is the answer it gave me. "Yes, it is the job of a federal judge to ensure that the Constitution is followed. Federal judges are responsible for interpreting the law and applying it to the cases before them, which includes ensuring that the Constitution is upheld. The Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the federal courts, and federal judges are tasked with deciding cases and controversies in a neutral and objective way, including the constitutionality of laws and government actions. The Supreme Court, in particular, has the authority to declare legislative or executive acts unconstitutional through the power of judicial review, which is a critical part of maintaining the Constitution's supremacy."

So as you can see, when it comes to upholding the laws of the Constitution, it isn't just up to the Supreme Court. If necessary, they only have the final say. Up until then, it is the job of the Federal Courts to decide if an action is constitutional or not.

The last sentence of your quote seems to weaken your argument rather than supporting it.

I asked AI whether a local police officer has a duty to uphold the Constitution:

AI Overview

Yes, local law enforcement, like all public officials, have a sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. This duty is typically formalized through an oath of office where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. While their primary focus is enforcing laws within their jurisdiction, this enforcement must be done in a manner consistent with constitutional principles.

I asked the same question about a public school teacher, which is my profession:

AI Overview

In public schools in the United States, teachers, as government actors, are obligated to uphold and act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, which includes respecting students' constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and due process
.
Correct answers, but neither of those professions have the power to stop the President of the United States from taking executive actions.

A low-level federal judge can decide if a local law enforcement officer's or a public school teacher's actions are unconstitutional, but now the rule is that they cannot apply that to all law enforcement officers or all teachers in the country. I believe they could rule that all such actions would be unconstitutional, but they cannot enjoin all officers, teachers, governors, lawmakers, all over from that actions.

How could an executive function if it required permission from each of the 800 federal judges in the United States?

 

[Highlight]

I said, just as this did, that District Judges do use the Constitution to adjudicate the cases before them.

However, ONLY the SCOTUS has the authority to issue a nationwide injunction.

They just reinforced that with their ruling.

Perplexity AI:

Authority Over District Judges​

Federal District Judges
Federal district judges are indeed under the authority of Congress in significant respects, primarily because Congress created the lower federal courts, including district courts, under its constitutional powers. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" inferior courts beneath the Supreme Court1. This means Congress decides whether such courts exist, how many there are, their jurisdiction, and their structure123.
Congress also determines:

• The number of district judgeships
• The boundaries and organization of the district courts
• The rules of procedure and jurisdiction for these courts
• The funding and resources allocated to the judiciary23

Judicial Independence
However, once appointed, federal district judges are constitutionally protected in their core functions. They hold office during "good Behaviour" (effectively life tenure) and their salaries cannot be diminished during their continuance in office, which ensures judicial independence from political pressures, including from Congress12. Congress cannot remove judges except through impeachment and conviction, and cannot reduce their pay as a means of control12.

Administrative and Supervisory Authority

While Congress establishes and structures the courts, the day-to-day supervision and administration of judges is managed within the judiciary itself, often under the oversight of higher courts or chief judges, not directly by Congress42. Congress does not direct judicial decisions or interfere in specific cases.

Summary Table: Congressional Authority vs. Judicial Independence

Creation of courts	Yes (can create/abolish lower courts)	No
Number of judges	Yes	No
Jurisdiction and structure	Yes	No
Appointment and confirmation	Yes (Senate confirms nominees)	No
Tenure and salary protection	No (protected by Constitution)	Yes
Case decisions	No	Yes
Impeachment	Yes (removal for misconduct)	No

Conclusion​

Federal district judges are under the authority of Congress in terms of the creation, structure, and jurisdiction of their courts, as well as the number of judgeships and the confirmation process123. However, once appointed, district judges operate independently in their judicial functions, with constitutional protections for tenure and salary that limit Congress's control over their decisions and employment12. Thus, while Congress is the source of their office and can shape the judiciary’s framework, it does not exercise direct authority over the actions or rulings of individual district judges.

1. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S1-8-4/ALDE_00013560/
2. The Relationship between the Federal Courts and the Two Congressional Judiciary Committees – Open Judicial Politics
3. The U.S. District Courts and the Federal Judiciary | Federal Judicial Center
4. 201 Pa. Code Chapter 6. Magisterial District Judges
5. About Magisterial District Judges - Special Court Judges Association of Pennsylvania
6. About U.S. District Courts
7. Magisterial District Judges | Minor Courts | Courts | Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania
8. Rules Governing Standards of Conduct of Magisterial District Judges: Effective December 1, 2014 – Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania
9. 201 Pa. Code Rule 605. Supervision of Magisterial District Courts by President Judges.
10. A Statutory Oddity

All this means is that ONLY the SCOTUS has the legal authority to issue Nationwide injunctions.

Well, that is what this thread is all about. The latest ruling of the supreme court. Though it goes into many issues, such as the recent ruling of the supreme court, this is what the answer I got when I did an AI search. "Yes, a federal judge can issue a nationwide injunction on a constitutional issue," I disagree with any action to limit the power of a federal judge on enforcing the Constitution. Because there is no controversy to be had on the issue. It is written in the Constitution. Case closed.

 

[Montrovant]

I'll respond to it, thanks for point it out:




The last sentence of your quote seems to weaken your argument rather than supporting it.

I asked AI whether a local police officer has a duty to uphold the Constitution:

AI Overview

Yes, local law enforcement, like all public officials, have a sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. This duty is typically formalized through an oath of office where they pledge to support and defend the Constitution. While their primary focus is enforcing laws within their jurisdiction, this enforcement must be done in a manner consistent with constitutional principles.

I asked the same question about a public school teacher, which is my profession:

AI Overview

In public schools in the United States, teachers, as government actors, are obligated to uphold and act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, which includes respecting students' constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and due process
.
Correct answers, but neither of those professions have the power to stop the President of the United States from taking executive actions.

A low-level federal judge can decide if a local law enforcement officer's or a public school teacher's actions are unconstitutional, but now the rule is that they cannot apply that to all law enforcement officers or all teachers in the country. I believe they could rule that all such actions would be unconstitutional, but they cannot enjoin all officers, teachers, governors, lawmakers, all over from that actions.

How could an executive function if it required permission from each of the 800 federal judges in the United States?

Your question is disingenuous. The executive does not require permission from each of the federal judges. The judges do not vet every action or decision the executive makes, only the cases brought before them.
Here's another question in response: why should the executive be allowed to continue an action that a federal judge has deemed to violate the constitution? If the USSC needs to make a decision about it, why shouldn't the action be halted until that happens?
Put another way, are you more concerned with protecting Constitutional rights or protecting the power of the executive branch?

The court ruled that these universal injunctions exceed the authority granted to federal judges, so for now, that's that. It will require class-action suits (in this case, multiple such suits have been filed already I believe) for the sort of broad power of a universal injunction. I question the logic behind limiting cases where the government is ruled to have violated the Constitution to just those directly involved in the case, but it's where we're at now. Even if universal injunctions had been upheld by the court, however, it would not have required the executive to get permission from each federal judge for any action.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your question is disingenuous. The executive does not require permission from each of the federal judges. The judges do not vet every action or decision the executive makes, only the cases brought before them.

True, but any action that Trump takes which is not liked by his political opponents can be brought before ANY federal jude anywhere in the country. If the judge has been carefully selected from among 677 district court judges, then the result desired by that political opponent is a near certainty.

So the bottom line is that if any presidential action is approved of by 676 disctrict court judges, but disapproved of by 1, it is liable to be "ruled unconstitional" by that single judge.

Here's another question in response: why should the executive be allowed to continue an action that a federal judge has deemed to violate the constitution?

Because that federal judge was not granted the entire executive power of the United States government by the voters and the United States Constitution. The president has.

If the USSC needs to make a decision about it, why shouldn't the action be halted until that happens?

Because the president does not take random actions for no particular reason. The president acts in what he - as the sole executive power - believes is in the best interest of the nation. The default shouldn't be that he is in the wrong unless not a single one of 677 district court judges disapproves.

Why not have that judge rule an action unconstitutional, if he or she is convinced it is, then let the plaintifs take it to the appelate court, and if the appelate court agrees, then the USSC can hear the case and decide whether to issue a valid injunction?

I don't think the president should even respond to lower level suits. They are very costly to respond to. If they have merit, the judge can make his ruling and the plaintifs can go to the appelate court. That would be the place to spend tax money responding. Or even wait until the USSC takes the case.

Put another way, are you more concerned with protecting Constitutional rights or protecting the power of the executive branch?

Being allowed to vote for who will have the power of the executive vested in them is a constitutional right held by all citizens. To have the other party angrily go to unelected judges who are also angry about the election results and bring that executive power to a grinding halt with ruling after ruling violates my constitutional rights. I'm pro-democracy, not pro-judiacracy.

The court ruled that these universal injunctions exceed the authority granted to federal judges, so for now, that's that. It will require class-action suits (in this case, multiple such suits have been filed already I believe) for the sort of broad power of a universal injunction.

But broad powers of universal injuctions are not "required" every time a president from the opposing party wins an election. The Democrats just want to get them. Bad strategy for ever regaining power. Sometimes it is better to say, "we lost this one. Let's figure out why, so we can win the next one."

You have to think beyond Donald Trump. Your party may well win the next presidential election after Trump has had four years to appoint federal judges. Do you want your president to be able to act to undo all of the things that Trump is doing that you disagree with, or do you want your president tied up in endless low-level court cases?

I question the logic behind limiting cases where the government is ruled to have violated the Constitution to just those directly involved in the case, but it's where we're at now. Even if universal injunctions had been upheld by the court, however, it would not have required the executive to get permission from each federal judge for any action.

Prior to this ruling, every time the president issued an executive order, a single district court judge believed they had the power to injoin it a moment later, so long as someone immediately filed a case requesting it. That's not exactly having to get permission, but it amounts to an instant veto by one of 677 unelected judges.