AOC vs SCOTUS

[CowboyJD]

You’re still mischaracterizing what she said. You left unbolded the part that means she isn’t saying they have no authority just that they didn’t have certain authority.

And since the Supreme Court hasn't asserted any authority yet....she clearly wasn't arguing that the Supreme Court had no authority.

And she made other statements that if the Supreme Court asserted authority that they do have in a particular manner, it would lead to a bad public policy consequences.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Thanks, will look into that

I totally get it too. Politics are very tiring these days. Go pokes!

 

[Backin82]

Yeah, sure like it better before the political threads got introduced. There are a thousand places to discuss politics, current events, etc, but only one quality site for OSU sports. Would have preferred the posts stay sports related, but ...

Nobody is forcing you to read this sub. Just ignore it. I think its a valuable part of the community.

 

[steross]

Well, it seems now the SCOTUS agrees that the SCOTUS has no power over the executive branch.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938609117934837833

 

[steross]

Supreme Court Live Updates: Trump Hails Ruling to Limit Nationwide Injunctions​

In a major victory for President Trump, the court restricted the ability of federal judges to block his executive orders. The decision may reshape the way U.S. citizenship is granted, even temporarily.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

 

[GratefulPoke]

Well, it seems now the SCOTUS agrees that the SCOTUS has no power over the executive branch.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938609117934837833

Its too lucrative for them to actually operate as a branch of government. This has to be the first time in history where 2 of 3 branches of government decide "I would rather not do my job". Checks and balances don't work when 2 branches decide they would rather not check the power of the other(s).

 

[TheMonkey]

Its too lucrative for them to actually operate as a branch of government. This has to be the first time in history where 2 of 3 branches of government decide "I would rather not do my job". Checks and balances don't work when 2 branches decide they would rather not check the power of the other(s).

The term “abdication of authority” comes to mind.

 

[steross]

The term “abdication of authority” comes to mind.

 

[steross]

4.864 Reaktionen · 690 Mal geteilt | Supreme court explained with 2nd Amendment example. | Jack Jones

Supreme court explained with 2nd Amendment example..

www.facebook.com

 

[oks10]

Do I understand this correctly? The (any) president can issue an unconstitutional or illegal executive order that applies to the entire nation but it can only be stopped nationwide if fought by each and every district unless it makes it up to the supreme court? And that actually makes sense to people??

 

[steross]

Do I understand this correctly? The (any) president can issue an unconstitutional or illegal executive order that applies to the entire nation but it can only be stopped nationwide if fought by each and every district unless it makes it up to the supreme court? And that actually makes sense to people??

I'm no legal scholar but it sounds like it is worse than that. If your state or a class action doesn't cover you, you have to sue the government yoruself to stop them from taking your constitutional rights:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/supreme-court-trump-executive-branch-power.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Sk8.3sEc.5X3jV7D8IEL1&smid=url-share

In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out.

The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits.

That means the Trump administration may start enforcing Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits.

 

[oks10]

I'm no legal scholar but it sounds like it is worse than that. If your state or a class action doesn't cover you, you have to sue the government yoruself to stop them from taking your constitutional rights:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/supreme-court-trump-executive-branch-power.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Sk8.3sEc.5X3jV7D8IEL1&smid=url-share

In the citizenship case, the justices stripped district court judges of the authority to issue so-called universal injunctions, a tool that lower courts have used to block government actions they deem most likely illegal from taking effect nationwide as legal challenges to them play out.

The frequency of such orders has sharply increased in recent years, bedeviling presidents of both parties. Going forward, the justices said, lower courts may only grant injunctive relief to the specific plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits.

That means the Trump administration may start enforcing Mr. Trump’s birthright citizenship order in the 28 states that have not challenged it, unless individual parents have the wherewithal and gumption to bring their own lawsuits.

I think what that might mean is that if your outside of one of the states that's challenged it, you would have to challenge it yourself.

One thing I do know at least is that Republicans have absolutely no foresight and this is going to end up biting them right in the a$$ the next time we have a Democrat president...

 

[steross]

I think what that might mean is that if your outside of one of the states that's challenged it, you would have to challenge it yourself.

One thing I do know at least is that Republicans have absolutely no foresight and this is going to end up biting them right in the a$$ the next time we have a Democrat president...

Right. And, if you challenged it, the ruling would apply to you and only you.

 

[UpGrayedd Double Dose]

I think what that might mean is that if your outside of one of the states that's challenged it, you would have to challenge it yourself.

One thing I do know at least is that Republicans have absolutely no foresight and this is going to end up biting them right in the a$$ the next time we have a Democrat president...

Are you sure there will ever be another Democrat president? I don't think the current administration plans on letting that happen (kidding but not really kidding). Six months ago (it feels like six years) I would have said that is crazy talk, but with the things I've seen happening here lately I'm not so sure any more.

 

[TheMonkey]

Are you sure there will ever be another Democrat president? I don't think the current administration plans on letting that happen (kidding but not really kidding). Six months ago (it feels like six years) I would have said that is crazy talk, but with the things I've seen happening here lately I'm not so sure any more.

At the least, the next election they will run on “Remember that absolute power we gave Trump? We can’t allow the Democrats to have that for their Marxist, tax-hungry, trans-everything, open border, destroy everything you love about America agenda.”

 

[GratefulPoke]

Are you sure there will ever be another Democrat president? I don't think the current administration plans on letting that happen (kidding but not really kidding). Six months ago (it feels like six years) I would have said that is crazy talk, but with the things I've seen happening here lately I'm not so sure any more.

At the least, the next election they will run on “Remember that absolute power we gave Trump? We can’t allow the Democrats to have that for their Marxist, tax-hungry, trans-everything, open border, destroy everything you love about America agenda.”

I think we will have elections, but I am not confident they will be free and fair. There is a concerted effort at the federal level and in many red/purple states to disenfranchise voters. The fights are still ongoing and how they go will determine what happens.

 

[RxCowboy]

Supreme Court Live Updates: Trump Hails Ruling to Limit Nationwide Injunctions​

In a major victory for President Trump, the court restricted the ability of federal judges to block his executive orders. The decision may reshape the way U.S. citizenship is granted, even temporarily.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/27/us/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court

Until it gets to SCOTUS, where it will be struck down, as it should be, and then MAGA will be crying about ACB again.

 

[RxCowboy]

Right. And, if you challenged it, the ruling would apply to you and only you.

In your district. And it would set a precedent that other courts would follow in similar cases. Unless a case gets to SCOTUS, and then a ruling applies to everyone everywhere, which is what I think will happen with the birthright citizenship.

 

[RxCowboy]

I think what that might mean is that if your outside of one of the states that's challenged it, you would have to challenge it yourself.

One thing I do know at least is that Republicans have absolutely no foresight and this is going to end up biting them right in the a$$ the next time we have a Democrat president...

It would have to apply to you for you to challenge it.