berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,721
- 27,481
- 2,820
Federal Judiciary Act (1789)
EnlargeDownload Link Engrossed Judiciary Act, September 24, 1789; First Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript One of the first acts of the new...
www.archives.gov
In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.
The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/articl...t-partial-stay-in-birthright-citizenship-case
As is the case in many instances where the founding documents come in to play, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.
The thing about the Roberts court is in previous rulings it has gone beyond the scope of the case before it to put its radically conservative, ideological stamp on the matter at hand. Naturally, in this case they did not rule on the constitutionality of Dotard's EO since it has no hope of surviving scrutiny on those grounds.
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
Despite the fact that the question before them was limited to whether federal trial court judges can issue injunctions that apply nationwide, the justices seemed incapable of distinguishing between that question and the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. In fact, that difficulty demonstrates the fallacy behind trying to limit or do away with nationwide injunctions because the underlying issue is always inextricably interwoven with whether an injunction is needed.Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum. Rather, it only further highlights the problems raised at oral argument — with the conservative majority focusing only on the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, while the liberal minority dissents accuse the majority of turning a blind-eye to the potentially blatant illegality of Trump’s executive order.
In a coldly beautiful piece of legal writing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett manages to capture the votes of all of the conservative justices with a deep dive into the history of the 1789 Judiciary Act. She concludes that in 1789, there was no contemplation of nationwide injunctions and, thus, using them likely exceeds the authority of the federal courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent — joined by Justice Elana Kagan, accuses the majority of enabling legal “gamesmanship” by the Trump administration that makes it so that “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates.” In a separate, even more blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the majority gives the executive branch “permission to engage in unlawful behavior.”
The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view
The conservative wing of the court overly relies on the emergency shadow docket and shouldn't have entertained the administration's birthright argument.
www.msnbc.com
