The Judiciary Act of 1789 didn't anticipate a prez like trump.

[dblack]

I mentioned in another threat that I recently stumbled into a theory about that. It explains the psychological attachment, and it's called "Identity Fusion". Pretty interesting: Identity Fusion

That's interesting. I know a huge part of the Trump appeal is the idea that he's like them - someone looked down on the "educated elite". But I also think they nurse a giddy thrill at seeing authoritarians pushing people around. Think of the people who actually got off on Trump saying "You're fired!" on TV. Most of those reality shows appeal to people who like to see authority figures "putting people in their place".

 

[Mac1958]

That's interesting. I know a huge part of the Trump appeal is the idea that he's like them - someone looked down on the "educated elite". But I also think they nurse a giddy thrill at seeing authoritarians pushing people around. Think of the people who actually got off on Trump saying "You're fired!" on TV. All those reality shows appeal to people who like to see authority figures "putting people in their place".

They're tremendously aggrieved, and the voices they trust inflate it by a factor of a thousand. So now they're closer to feral. And yeah, Trump satisfies it with his constant juvenile personal attacks and name-calling. That's his level, too.

I think that many of their concerns are perfectly valid. But they only know to communicate and act and respond at a hyperbolic, manic level. I don't know how to communicate with that.

 

[Nostra]

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 grCry ounds.

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

Cry more

 

[berg80]

Sore loser threads always make me laugh.

No way the founders envisioned more than seven hundred federal judges, each playing amateur president when carefully judge-shopped cases are brought to them.

No way the founders anticipated a prez issuing EO's flagrantly violating the black letter law, expressly designed to do exactly what trump is trying to illegally prevent.

Even the Founding Fathers Couldn’t Envision a President Like Trump​

Even the Founding Fathers Couldn’t Envision a President Like Trump

Of course President Trump was acquitted in the Senate yesterday. Any other outcome, any charge against him—not even counting the ones the House of Representatives impeached him for last December—wa…

lithub.com

Of course President Trump was acquitted in the Senate yesterday. Any other outcome, any charge against him—not even counting the ones the House of Representatives impeached him for last December—was unthinkable from the first.

It is ridiculous, for instance, to suggest that an American president would ever seek the company of minions and mistresses. There is no way an American president would consider cozying up to Asiatic despots; and he would never, ever, associate with anyone who dispatched murderous henchmen to do his dirty work in Istanbul. Don’t take my word for it: this is what Alexander Hamilton wrote in March 1788 in a scathing and satirical op-ed, known today as Federalist No. 67, which mocked paranoid Americans who feared that, if the US Constitution (which hadn’t been ratified yet) installed a presidency atop this country’s hierarchy, the man who came to power might one day turn tyrant. It was outrageous and “extravagant” to suggest, Hamilton wrote, that a US President, aka Chief Executive, aka Magistrate, might behave as badly as King George III, whom the colonists had just gotten rid of after a bloody seven-year war.

Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting this country half a century later, was utterly persuaded, and cited Hamilton at the top of his somewhat patronizing explainer on the comparative “inferiority” of America’s Executive Power structure to France’s monarchy. In a republic like America, Tocqueville explained in Democracy in America, the Senate reins in the President; it “supervises him in his relations with foreign powers and in his appointments to offices so that he can neither corrupt nor be corrupted.” The president is a humble man, not a pompous potentate, despite his title: “the ruler’s demeanor remains simple, unaffected, and modest,” he wrote. And, unlike the French king, Tocqueville added, “The President of the United States is answerable for his acts.” Don’t tell that to Lamar Alexander.

In 1788, Hamilton couldn’t have foreseen Stormy Daniels, Kim Jong Un, Jamal Khashoggi, or Access Hollywood, more’s the pity.

 

[dblack]

blablablablablablabla

And you ******* fauxbertarians make the fraudulent claim that you're the "origionalists".

Well, Mr. Everyoneisafascist, what was the original intent of the passage of the 14th Amendment in controversy here?

C'mon, dazzle us all with your next-level professorial knowledge of the subject.

Skip the posturing. I actually oppose birthright citizenship, and I'm fine with it being removed. But I oppose unhinged authoritarian government more.

 

[Mac1958]

Skip the posturing. I actually oppose birthright citizenship, and I'm fine with it being removed. But I oppose unhinged authoritarian government more.

That's the myopic, binary nature of MAGA. If you're against THIS, then you MUST be against THAT. No in between.

Keeps stuff simple, I guess, but it's not exactly insightful.

 

[toobfreak]

In so many ways, our system was not designed to deal with the autocratic impulses of a prez.

Trump is predictably winning on another issue against us!

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.

Damn republicans follow the Constitution even when its outcome screws democrats!

the men of the era who wrote them did not contemplate a future petty tyrant issuing a blatantly unconstitutional order.

Blaming the other side for our own mistakes hasn't worked the last 15,000 times, so let's keep up the strategy of never admitting our own mistakes! Just keep doing what does not work! Excellent!

The Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship reasoning reveals a startlingly myopic view

Predictably, the USSC did not see things our way!

Today’s 6-3 decision fails to resolve this conundrum.

It wasn't intended to, jackass. They will resolve the issue when they come back this Fall.
But I love that you had to dig down to MSNBC to find an opinion you support, a news outlet that no one reads or watches because they are crackpot-central, just the kind of place you fit in.

 

[berg80]

From Judge Jackson...“Disaster looms if a court cannot command the executive to follow the law, then there exists “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

From Sotomayor...

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates, Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship… That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. When the Constitution and the president face off, the Constitution falls."

“Disaster looms”: Justice Jackson’s warning for the country

The Supreme Court allows presidents to do what judges have ruled illegal.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Auld Phart]

From Judge Jackson...“Disaster looms if a court cannot command the executive to follow the law, then there exists “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

From Sotomayor...

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates, Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship… That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. When the Constitution and the president face off, the Constitution falls."

“Disaster looms”: Justice Jackson’s warning for the country

The Supreme Court allows presidents to do what judges have ruled illegal.

www.motherjones.com

Disaster looms if a court cannot command the executive to follow the law, then there exists “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

how did she feel about Bidens attempts to pass loan forgiveness?

 

[dblack]

From Judge Jackson...“Disaster looms if a court cannot command the executive to follow the law, then there exists “a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.”

From Sotomayor...

“No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates, Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship… That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. When the Constitution and the president face off, the Constitution falls."

“Disaster looms”: Justice Jackson’s warning for the country

The Supreme Court allows presidents to do what judges have ruled illegal.

www.motherjones.com

Yep. All the MAGA weenies will be wailing when a fascist Democratic takes advantage of this.

 

[toobfreak]

The Founders and early legislators did everything they could to deter this from happening,

When and where, please? Link?

they couldn't account for changes in culture and human nature.

Whatever happened to the Constitution is outdated and a living document needing updated???

Nor could they account for the rise of a fully self-contained and separate informational universe.

Kinda like MSNBC, huh?

Uncharted waters now. The Founders, as brilliant as their work was, did not have a provision for this, nor could they.

TRANSLATION: Democrats are shit outta luck. The Left's last attempts at judicial tyranny are quickly slipping away.
Never too late though, Mac! I hear Rosie is looking to hire a gardener in Ireland!!!

 

[berg80]

Skip the posturing. I actually oppose birthright citizenship, and I'm fine with it being removed. But I oppose unhinged authoritarian government more.

If it is to be ended then Dotard should get a constitutional amendment to do so passed. But he knows he has a shot of getting it reversed the easy way. Put the matter before his radical Court.

 

[dblack]

If it is to be ended then Dotard should get a constitutional amendment to do so passed. But he knows he has a shot of getting it reversed the easy way. Put the matter before his radical Court.

Or at least let Congress vote on it. Rule by EO is not the way we govern.

 

[berg80]

Yep. All the MAGA weenies will be wailing when a fascist Democratic takes advantage of this.

Class action suits are the remedy. They're just much more difficult and costly to bring (the Court knows this). Which is why I'm sending $100 to the ACLU this morning.

 

[toobfreak]

Not only did they not contemplate the traitorous acts of a prez

Oh No Mr. Bill! Now democrats are even powerless to stop TREASON! And because why? Because they were too incompetent to nominate a candidate for themselves able to defeat a man who (by their opinion) is an idiot, a career failure, a career crook, a convicted felon, a molester, and a non-professional with barely any experience in politics!

who does not have the interests of the nation in mind,

Do please list for us all the great things Joe Biden did for the majority of Americans!

they did not contemplate a populace who would support such a man.

Did you ever stop to think that it was an easy decision when the democrat candidates you put up were 500X worse?!

 

[berg80]

trump is the last prez in the world you want to have with the ability to violate the constitutional rights of citizens unless or until he is blocked by a class action suit or by his SC.

 

[toobfreak]

That's their level. And they vote. And here we are.

I bet you're such a great constitutionalist that you would be the first to take away the vote from millions of deplorables! Let's see:

• Deplorables.
• Domestic terrorists.
• Insurrectionists.
• Cultists.
• Garbage.

These are some of the things you and Joe Biden called half of America before an election and now blame them for not voting for your guy! Too funny! Kammy even told anyone who was religious to take a hike down the street!

WHY AREN'T THEY VOTING FOR US DEMOCRATS????!

 

[jc456]

The Founders and early legislators did everything they could to deter this from happening, but they couldn't account for changes in culture and human nature. Nor could they account for the rise of a fully self-contained and separate informational universe.

Uncharted waters now. The Founders, as brilliant as their work was, did not have a provision for this, nor could they.

Like relinquishing the country to illegals

 

[jc456]

That's their level. And they vote. And here we are.

So you don’t respect democracy

 

[berg80]

Or at least let Congress vote on it. Rule by EO is not the way we govern.

It can be a useful tool if applied with restraint. trump is out of control.