The biggest take paway from the USSC birthright hearing had nothing to do with birthright

[JimH52]

Lisa Rubin: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one

The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

www.msnbc.com

Sauer told Barrett it is “general practice” to “respect those precedents,” but added that “there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”

This is naked authoritarianism. It is not the place of the executive branch to decide which federal court orders it needs to obey. And, contrary to the administration's appellant attorney, there is NOT a precedent of past administrations to do so.

Other than Thomas and Alito, the justices need to see that for what it is...a blatant statement pronouncing the trump administration's march to an authoritarian regime.

 

[Crepitus]

Lisa Rubin: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one

The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

www.msnbc.com

Sauer told Barrett it is “general practice” to “respect those precedents,” but added that “there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”

This is naked authoritarianism. It is not the place of the executive branch to decide which federal court orders it needs to obey. And, contrary to the administration's appellant attorney, there is NOT a precedent of past administrations to do so.

Other than Thomas and Alito, the justices need to see that for what it is...a blatant statement pronouncing the trump administration's march to an authoritarian regime.

Can you imagine the reaction should one of Biden's lawyers said that?

 

[excalibur]

Lisa Rubin: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one

The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

www.msnbc.com

Sauer told Barrett it is “general practice” to “respect those precedents,” but added that “there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice.”

This is naked authoritarianism. It is not the place of the executive branch to decide which federal court orders it needs to obey. And, contrary to the administration's appellant attorney, there is NOT a precedent of past administrations to do so.

Other than Thomas and Alito, the justices need to see that for what it is...a blatant statement pronouncing the trump administration's march to an authoritarian regime.

The matter of birthright citizenship was not in front of the Court, the matter was solely about District Court's issuing national injunctions.

 

[JimH52]

Can you imagine the reaction should one of Biden's lawyers said that?

There would be weeping and nashing of teeth in the GOP ranks.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, the executive has no authority to pick and choose which laws and rulings it will follow.

 

[JimH52]

No, the executive has no authority to pick and choose which laws and rulings it will follow.

When does President Donald Trump’s defiance of courts in deportation case cross the line into a constitutional crisis? | Constitutional Accountability Center

WASHINGTON – Presidents of both parties have pushed the limits of their authority throughout history. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Andrew Jackson refused to enforce a Supreme Court order involving a clash between Georgia and the Cherokee Nation...

www.theusconstitution.org

Defying the USSC is a step into a Kingdom.

 

[Auld Phart]

No, the executive has no authority to pick and choose which laws and rulings it will follow.

Biden thought he did

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The executive branch enforces the law.
And the constitution says that birthright citizenship is for the children of citizens, not for the children of foreign citizens who illegally crossed our border.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The matter of birthright citizenship was not in front of the Court, the matter was solely about District Court's issuing national injunctions.

“Here’s what that means in plain English: The Trump administration, through its top lawyer, is telling the Supreme Court that it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances. And contrary to Sauer’s assertion, that finds no support in long-standing DOJ policy, much less department norms.

It’s one thing to hear political actors — whether that’s the White House press secretary or even Vice President JD Vance — assert that the administration should not be bound by federal court orders it considers lawless. But it’s another thing entirely to hear the administration’s top appeals lawyer say as much in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

And that’s the essence of authoritarianism – a despotic regime claiming it can ignore the courts and rule of law with impunity.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The matter of birthright citizenship was not in front of the Court, the matter was solely about District Court's issuing national injunctions.

Is SCOTUS going to hear arguments on the birthright citizen argument or is this all that there is? And if SCOTUS is going to hear arguments do you know when?

 

[excalibur]

Is SCOTUS going to hear arguments on the birthright citizen argument or is this all that there is? And if SCOTUS is going to hear arguments do you know when?

Not this term, maybe the October term.

 

[Orangecat]

What will the dims do if they can't stop the will of the American people via judge shopping?