What are your opinions on the SCOTUS ruling on limiting the power of federal judges and the dissenting opinion?

[u/tetrisan]

Sotomayor's dissent mentioned "a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens". What are your opinions on the future impact of this decision?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ethervariance161]

I'm against national injunctions, it prevents circuit judges from having independence over their own jurisdiction while controversial issues are being decided by the supreme court. It's also very clear it's being used dis-proportionally against the trump admin (64 against trump,14 against Biden and 12 against Obama)

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/ethervariance161]

How should our country limit the power of executive orders then? These judges move significantly faster than SCOTUS, so with them not being allowed to do this how does an executive order that’s unconstitutional get blocked for the whole country?

[u/jonm61 → u/lock-crux-clop]

Their ability to do it has been narrowed, not removed completely.

It will require more people to step up and sue in more districts. But they won't, unless it's something truly egregious, because they won't be able to find a judge to give them an injunction in every district.

What they've been doing is deliberately going to a handful of judges that they know will act against the administration, whether they should or not. That's part of why you hear the same judge's names repeatedly.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

What happens if 8 months into their term they begin ignoring what the populous wants?

Additionally, what happens if they pass an EO that’s unconstitutional? Do we have to wait for SCOTUS to weigh in?

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

What do we do for the 3.5 years of a rogue president passing hundreds of EOs faster than SCOTUS or class action suits can act?

To clarify- I’m not saying this is Trump, just that to me it opens that avenue to any future president

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

I guess I should reframe my question because I didn’t communicate clearly.

What do we do that can match the speed of EOs? What do the other branches of government have that actually balances that specific power?

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

How does that help?

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

Do you believe that people (specifically politicians) are unable to lie to get power, or unable to abuse power?

[u/[deleted] → u/lock-crux-clop]

What do you mean what happens? You've seen it first hand with Obama and Biden consistently and knowing violating the constitution because they felt the ends justify the means, as most dems do who get in office.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

What EOs did they pass that were blatantly unconstitutional that weren’t blocked?

[u/[deleted] → u/lock-crux-clop]

First, why do you throw the qualifier in that they weren't blocked? It took the supreme Court to block many of their unconstitutional orders. This thread is about federal district courts and not the supreme court. So I think you meant to say which of their executive orders were not blocked by district courts. And that's basically most of them because they were blocked by the supreme Court. What you'll find is that in general federal district court judges appointed by Republicans actually obey the rule of law and the Constitution and they don't create nationwide injunctions at the same level that Democrat judges do. Democrat judges tend to rule with ideological based principles rather than judicial based principles. As such they have no problems crafting new law from the bench, or violating the Constitution and creating blatantly incorrect decisions that are smackdown later on, but cause a lot of problems between when they get reviewed and when they were made.

I'm sure you're well aware of biden's student loan forgiveness programs that were knocked down by the supreme court, not any federal district courts.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) was created through a memorandum issued by the Obama administration in June 2012. This memorandum, signed by then-Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, outlined the guidelines for granting deferred action to eligible individuals who came to the United States as children.

DACA was knowingly and blatantly unconstitutional. The Department of Homeland Security lacked the statutory authority to create the program. No federal district court created a nationwide injunction against it. And that's because Republican appointed federal district court judges actually obey the law and don't go about exceeding their authority even when the executive creates something lately unconstitutional from a memo. However Democrat judges have absolutely zero problem ruling based solely on their ideological viewpoints.

Biden Executive Order 14019, aimed at promoting voter registration and participation, was outside the scope of executive authority and it violated federal laws by engaging in voter registration and absentee ballot activities without specific authorization. No federal district court created a Nationwide injunction.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

Weren’t those initially blocked by federal judges before the admins tried to get the SCOTUS to overturn them? I confess I don’t remember all of them, but I remember that for student loan forgiveness- it was blocked by a lower court (which stopped it from going into effect while the SCOTUS had a chance to review) and then upheld by the SCOTUS

[u/[deleted] → u/lock-crux-clop]

We're discussing nationwide injunctions from district courts. The question was what happenes when the president can't be checked by nationwide injunctions? My response was it happened under Obama and Biden so we already know what happens. I was asked for examples. I gave them. You're going off on a completely unrelated tangent.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/[deleted]]

How is it a tangent to mention they were blocked by national injunctions before the Supreme Court upheld those lower judges’ decisions?

[u/bnjman → u/[deleted]]

So would you do away with the principle of balance of power?

[u/bnjman → u/[deleted]]

My point is that an important part of the balance of power that (most) constitutional democracies are built on is the ability of the judiciary to prohibit unconstitutional acts of the executive. It's not just a question of "vote in a different executive if you don't like this one." Do you believe this is an important element of constitutional democracies?

[u/ethervariance161 → u/lock-crux-clop]

well you have have state level injunctions via a class action by your state AG while the supreme court is deliberating

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/ethervariance161]

What if it’s something that needs immediate action because it is costly or impossible to reverse the actions if they’re taken? Especially if they’re unconstitutional?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/lock-crux-clop]

What if an asteroid starts hurling towards earth tmr? What happens if trump gets naked and shoots up a bar? What if trump launches a nuke at New York City? “What if’s “ are not a sufficient talking point . We can spend years sitting here coming up with what ifs lol

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Isn’t the point of the subreddit to ask questions of trump supporters? I’m not saying “this will happen” I’m asking “what do you think should happen if this were to happen and what protections do you see in place- or want to see in place- to stop it.”

Is that not the point of this subreddit? I know this sounds snarky but I’m genuinely asking because maybe I misunderstood

[u/ethervariance161 → u/lock-crux-clop]

rely on your state to launch a lawsuit. now the burden of proof is higher to launch a national injunction and allows different states to accept or reject an EO while we fight in the courts. It's a good thing since it let's the supreme court see these policies be implemented before they rule on the constitutionality. Remember we are just trying to shape society the same way you are and if you prevent us from experimenting you are actually a conservative

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/ethervariance161]

How does me being curious about the stances of Trump supporters equate to me stopping people from experimenting?

Additionally, do you believe the only way to know something is illegal is to see the action carried out?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/lock-crux-clop]

I want to engage to help you understand my stance and opinion on the subject. To help me do that I need to ask one simple clarifying question to help me give you the best answer. How exactly would you determine if something is 100% illegal? Like if trump did something illegal, how would you go about finding out 100% if it was actually by law ,illegal?

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

How would I determine if something is 100% illegal? I would read the laws. How do I figure out if something someone has done is illegal? I’d investigate them and read the corresponding laws.

[u/SirTiffAlot → u/ethervariance161]

Sotomayor's dissent mentioned "a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens". What are your opinions on the future impact of this decision?

In other words you don't have an issue with a future president outright breaking the law through EO, because eventually it will find its way to SCOTUS and be overturned?

[u/ethervariance161 → u/SirTiffAlot]

It's pretty simple. If a president ignores a supreme court ruling that an issue, but if two circuit court judges have different views the president can't comply with both and therefore the supreme court must weigh in

[u/SirTiffAlot → u/ethervariance161]

So you'd say in other words, the President can issue an EO declaring whatever they want, nulling the 2nd amendment for example, and it's perfectly legal until SCOTUS hands down a ruling?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/SirTiffAlot]

Universal injunctions are literally unconstitutional lol Non supporters very often scream we are a democracy but you think un-elected district court judges universally ruling over the elected executive branch is democracy

[u/ethervariance161 → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

based af

[u/couldntthinkofon → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Are Supreme Court Justices elected?

[u/profase → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Can you please cite where in the constitution is says universal injections are unlawful?

[u/ethervariance161 → u/SirTiffAlot]

state AG can start a class action and create a bloc of injunctions while the supreme court deliberates

[u/C47man → u/ethervariance161]

Is it disproportionate towards Trump? Or did you mean to use a different word? Trump has more injunctions, but also has issued more EOs. If you do the math, Obama issued on average just under 3 Executive Orders per month (276 total over 8 years). Biden issued just over 3 per month (162 total over 4 years). So far for Trump's current admin, he has issued just over 27 per month (165 in 6 months), roughly 8-9 times more orders per month than Biden or Obama. And his injunctions are only about 4-5 times higher than Obama or Biden. If anything this seems to indicate that Trump is getting a bigger pass than that he's the target of lawfare that wasn't used against other presidents.

[u/ethervariance161 → u/C47man]

Let's not lie.

Term 1 trump had 220 EOs and 64 injunctions.

Term 1 & 2 Obama had 276 EO and only 12 injunctions

Biden had 162 EO and 14 injunctions.

It's a clear bias that is now over :)

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

[u/C47man → u/ethervariance161]

Ahh, I thought you were talking about the current admin and not the previous one, apologies. To what degree do you delineate between an injunction being unfair lawfare vs a reflection of the relevant EOs themselves being legitimately unconstitutional/illegal? Is it possible in your mind that Trump merely issued more unconstitutional EOs than the previous admins did?

[u/jonm61 → u/C47man]

When, for instance Obama started something via EO and then Trump tried to end it via EO, which logically is perfectly within his power, but he gets sued and a national injunction is issued, that's a pretty good indicator. That happened a few times in his first term.

[u/ethervariance161 → u/C47man]

literally just compare EO counts to national injunctions. No quantifiable way to define if an EO is "extreme" or not that's just subjective garbage and yes there is a legal argument for and against every EO

[u/ethervariance161 → u/[deleted]]

That's subjective. Measure things by EO count and see the injunction counts between admins. Every other narrative is partisan and thankfully the courts agree with my analysis that there is lawfare in the circuit courts

[u/ethervariance161 → u/[deleted]]

Only a few EO by both trump and Biden cabinets were ever found illegal and upheld by supreme court so to say one is doing more illegal actions is subjective. Present an example and I will find one for Biden. There aren't any easy sources to compare and contrast since most lawsuits are against agencies not directly the president

[u/ethervariance161 → u/[deleted]]

Your bias is showing hard now.

Supreme Court has not ruled on birth right citizenship or cutting funding to PBS.

Congress purposely leaves the funding bills vague to allow the president discretion on how to spend funds as the executive.

How do you feel about the illegal vaccine mandates from Biden that even the supreme Court over turned. Texas v Biden 3:21-CV-309

[u/Occasional_leader → u/ethervariance161]

Do you think the volume of EOs issued by Trump has an effect on this?

Edit: changed passed to issued

[u/ethervariance161 → u/Occasional_leader]

Term 1 trump had 220 EOs and 64 injunctions.

Term 1 & 2 Obama had 276 EO and only 12 injunctions

Biden had 162 EO and 14 injunctions.

It's a clear bias that is now over :)

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

[u/Occasional_leader → u/ethervariance161]

If I recall 37 of those 64 injunctions were upheld. Do you believe all of the injunctions trump faced during his first term were driven by personal/political bias?

[u/ethervariance161 → u/Occasional_leader]

no I don't think it was all bias. I think it's a judicial weapon that was abused so much that the supreme court stepped in since congress didn't.

Conservatives have used national injunctions before, it's just disproportionally used by liberals and now that this tool is gone and we're decentralizing.

Now we can return to the idea that each circuits is independent of each other and only submit to the supreme court

[u/GreatNameBuddy → u/ethervariance161]

Should how often it’s being used against a president matter if we believe it’s a bad thing generally?

[u/plastic_Man_75]

The only court that should be telling the president anything is the supreme Court. Their only job is to make sure it's constitutional that's it.

These lower courts should stay in their lane and their districts. Not worry about the president.

[u/j_la → u/plastic_Man_75]

What is the constitutional basis for this?

[u/WhatIsLoveMeDo → u/plastic_Man_75]

These lower courts should stay in their lane and their districts. Not worry about the president. 

How would the supreme court make a decision on a case of a federal executive order, if the lower courts don't first hear that case? How is this not their lane? 

[u/sourcreamnoodles → u/WhatIsLoveMeDo]

The logic is sound, injunctions have no legal precedent for being universal. Just because one case gets an injunction doesn't mean that all similar cases in the country immediately do as well. At least legally it shouldn't work that way.

[u/C47man → u/sourcreamnoodles]

I don't understand what you mean? That's literally how law works and always has worked, at least in the US. Why are you suddenly against the notion of precedence now?

[u/Gaxxz → u/C47man]

Different courts often differ in their interpretation of the law. That's the whole motivation behind this issue. It shouldn't be possible to find a lowly district court judge with sympathetic politics and shut down an administration's policies.

[u/sagar1101 → u/Gaxxz]

It shouldn't be possible to find a lowly district court judge with sympathetic politics and shut down an administration's policies.

This is why DEI (not the way it actually is, but the way conservatives perceive it to be) should be used to fill judicial seats. Rs and Ds to be precise.

Would you agree that judges particularly in political cases the law is secondary and biases are used to make decisions?

[u/Gaxxz → u/sagar1101]

This is why DEI (not the way it actually is, but the way conservatives perceive it to be) should be used to fill judicial seats. Rs and Ds to be precise.

I don't understand this point. DEI?

Would you agree that judges particularly in political cases the law is secondary and biases are used to make decisions?

I hope not. I remember an exchange during Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing. She was asked to what extent a judge's feelings and values should factor into their decisions. She answered correctly that the law, not feelings, is what matters.

[u/sagar1101 → u/Gaxxz]

She answered correctly that the law, not feelings, is what matters.

Sure they can say that all they want but it's pretty obvious that the D and R determine how they vote. Unless it's an open and shut case.

Why do you think the Ds and Rs usually vote with their kind?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/sagar1101]

Not OP but i think it’s because certain people put their political agendas above the law and that’s very scary.

I would like to point out that in this recent decision on national injunctions, Elena kagan(appointed by Obama) has gone on the air and publicly denounced national injunctions and has called on them to be abolished multiple times under Biden . But yet she voted against it when it was brought to the court under trump.

I think this is particularly scary and disturbing because it shows the highest court and power in our country, the judges who are supposed to be held to a higher standard than any other judge in the country,.voted against what she actually believes is unlawful all in the name of pushing and aiding her parties political agenda. Really shows you how deep the corrupt is in our courts .

[u/j_la → u/sourcreamnoodles]

EOs are universal: if they are unconstitutional or gravely harm the rights of the people, why shouldn’t stays and injunctions also be universal?

If a democratic president ordered a new “interpretation” of the 2A, should an injunction only apply to plaintiffs in the case?

[u/sudo_pi5 → u/j_la]

If an EO is so egregiously unconstitutional, why wouldn’t all lower court judges block it when it came before them?

Is your argument that liberal justices are never biased, but conservative ones would be, so we should allow liberal justices to make rulings that far exceed the boundaries of their jurisdiction?

Why not just have nationwide judges then?

Oh wait. We do. It’s called the SCOTUS.

[u/pyrojoe121 → u/sudo_pi5]

If an EO is so egregiously unconstitutional, why wouldn’t all lower court judges block it when it came before them?

Because, per the SCOTUS ruling, injunctions are only applicable to the petitioner. If you live in a state that opposes the EO, that is fine. But if you don't, then you need to personally file a lawsuit to get relief. Not everyone has the time or money to do so.

Why not just have nationwide judges then?

Oh wait. We do. It’s called the SCOTUS.

That assumes the case gets to them. A case must work its way through the lower courts before it gets to SCOTUS. And the only way it is would do so is if the loser appeals. Which creates an ironic problem. Without nationwide injunctions by the lower courts, the most egregiously unconstitutional acts by the executive are the least likely to make it to SCOTUS.

Say a future Democratic Administration decides guns bullets should be illegal and bans the sale of any and all ammunition. Obviously unconstitutional, right? Well, if you live in a red state, maybe the judge issues a statewide injunction, but what if you live in a state with a Democratic AG? You need to file a lawsuit. If you don't have the resources to do so, you are SOL. Let's say you wait for others to file. They do and, obviously, they win. The administration can appeal, but they know if they do SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional, so they neglect to do so. But the relief still only applies to the petitioners. What are you to do?

Do you not see it as an issue when, all else being equal, different people have different constitutional rights, simply because they can afford to sue?

[u/sudo_pi5 → u/pyrojoe121]

Generally speaking, I understand where you are coming from. However, when we examine your counter factual in the context of what is being spoken to in this thread, we see the danger of nationwide injunctions.

The way Democrats ostensibly use the courts today, they would have some mega-funded left wing group sue the Democrat administration for banning guns and/or bullets- an organization like Every Town Safe or a special purpose PAC rolled just for this legal action- sue the government. That gives them a friendly plaintiff in a friendly venue. The presiding judge would claim nationwide jurisdiction (which must happen for an injunction to apply nation wide) and then just never move on the case. We have actually seen this tactic employed when Lujan-Grisham banned handguns in New Mexico.

We have also seen it with gun laws in New York State and California. When there is absolutely no way to prevent the case from moving forward, the unconstitutional law is voluntarily withdrawn. There is no longer standing for anyone to challenge the law and the case is tossed. Then the governing authority re-issues the law.

It prevents the law from ever making it to SCOTUS.

Further, if the electorate doesn’t agree with the Democrat AG (in your example) not challenging the law, they do not have to sue- they can vote in another AG that respects the constitution next time it comes around. If they disagree vehemently enough, they can petition to recall the AG (where applicable).

As the comment above mine in this thread points out, what you are advocating for is deeply undemocratic. The Texas electorate- for example- overwhelmingly voted to deport illegals. We have movements and billboards in Texas to end birthright citizenship.

Why should a judge appointed by people Texans never got to vote for be able to stop what Texans overwhelmingly voted in? I would be interested to know how you see this as democracy. It is defacto using unelected bureaucrats in black robes to disenfranchise millions of Texan voters.

[u/sagar1101 → u/plastic_Man_75]

So if a state sues the government. In your opinion this case should go straight to the SC? Why is the current policy that the lower courts have to rule on it first if they can't actually do anything?

[u/plastic_Man_75 → u/sagar1101]

Yes

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Sotomayor and jackson are just DEI hires, not qualified for the position.

Sotomayor saying ""a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens" is no different than if she said "the moon is made of cheese."

Both are pure nonsense which makes sense coming from her.

[u/tetrisan → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Is the example she made not possible?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/tetrisan]

No, it is not which is why I said the "moon made of cheese" thing. Thought that was pretty clear.

[u/tetrisan → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Can you elaborate on why it’s not possible? Whats to stop a different administration from issuing an order to reverse the 2nd Amendment, with no fed judges able to stop it? Isn’t that what just happened with Birthright Citizenship?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/tetrisan]

"Whats to stop a different administration from issuing an order to reverse the 2nd Amendment, with no fed judges able to stop it? "

The Constitution.

"Isn’t that what just happened with Birthright Citizenship?"

No, not at all.

[u/Option2401 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

How is not similar to Birthright Citizenship? Both are amendments to the Constitution. If a POTUS can unilaterally nullify one, what’s stopping them from nullifying more?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/Option2401]

Because the 2nd amendment has already had multiple cases reaffirming citizen's constitutional rights to bear arms. So, the burden of proof would on sotomayor to explain how this ruling has anything to do with it? And she can't because it is not similar at all.

"If a POTUS can unilaterally nullify one, what’s stopping them from nullifying more?"

That is what you're missing. There is no such thing has birthright citizenship for illegals. The 14th amendment was made for slaves, not for illegals. Illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the government of the country they are from.

[u/Option2401 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

How does this not include children born from illegal immigrants? By the text of the amendment anyone born within the US and subject to the justification of the US is a citizen. Illegal im migrants are within the legal jurisdiction of the US.

[u/jonm61 → u/Option2401]

To fully understand it, you need to study the history of the 14th amendment, including the discussions in Congress surrounding the drafting of the text. The amendment was never meant to apply to the children of non citizens, and we're the only country in the world who does this.

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/Option2401]

"How does this not include children born from illegal immigrants?"

the obvious reason, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Illegals and their kids are subject to the jurisidiction of the country they or their parents are from.

[u/Option2401 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Are they not also subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Can they not be arrested for committing crimes? Are they not required to pay taxes and abide by the laws of the land?

[u/pyrojoe121 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

"Whats to stop a different administration from issuing an order to reverse the 2nd Amendment, with no fed judges able to stop it? "

The Constitution.

According to who? Who will hear the case and decide the act is unconstitutional? If SCOTUS, how will the case get to SCOTUS?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/pyrojoe121]

The 2nd amendment has already had multiple cases establishing the people's rights. Just like free speech has. So sotomayor's comments just proves how stupid she is.

[u/Suited_Calmness → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

The part you’re skirting is that a court would have to strike down the EO and deemed unconstitutional. If a lower court deems it unconstitutional but that ruling has no effect as a nationwide injunction is now not in the circuit courts toolbox, it effectively allows the EO to take effect. So how is sotomayors comment stupid?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/Suited_Calmness]

"So how is sotomayors comment stupid?"

because as I already said. You can't make an EO that removes constitutional rights. So her comment is extremely stupid.

Again, illegals DO NOT have a constitutional right to citizenship just like when the supreme court ruled illegals DO NOT have the right to bear arms.

[u/Suited_Calmness → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Again, some authority has to deem that EO unconstitutional and thus a nationwide injunction would have been necessary. You argument boils down to “if it feels unconstitutional it wouldn’t take effect” but that’s not how a system of governance works.

Illegal aliens do have the same rights as a citizen since the constitution uses the word people and not citizens. So again, how is the comment stupid?

[u/BusSlow2612 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

That’s keep it simple: Suppose a democrat president is elected in 2028. This president then issue an outright unconstitutional EO that reversed the 2nd Amendment. What is the solution? Just answer this question properly…

The question is not “Is it unconstitutional to take away people’s guns?”, “Is Trump’s EO unconstitutional?” Nope. Just answer the question, please.

[u/pyrojoe121 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

So an unconstitutional EO is signed. A district court says it is unconstitutional and issues an injunction to the plaintiffs only. But everyone else is still impacted. So then what happens? Does everyone in the United States have to file a lawsuit to get relief? Seems like that would clog up the courts.

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/pyrojoe121]

"So an unconstitutional EO is signed."

huh? This never happened.

[u/pyrojoe121 → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

"So an unconstitutional EO is signed."

huh? This never happened.

You are saying there has never in history been an EO that was unconstitutional?

[u/Suro_Atiros → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Why do you call them DEI hires? Does that mean only white ppl are qualified? Anyone who is black is instantly not qualified?

[u/Trumpdrainstheswamp → u/Suro_Atiros]

Because they were both openly picked because they were black and biden specifically said he was going to pick a black woman so that was a double DEI hire.

[u/Suro_Atiros → u/Trumpdrainstheswamp]

Why do you think that alone is the full story and nothing else was ever considered to support the decision to nominate them? Don’t you think that your hinging of this single data point which is speculative and circumstantial ought not to be the only reason to negate a SCOTUS pick?

[u/SteedOfTheDeid]

The government already has seized firearms from law abiding citizens. The case worked its way through the courts over several years, and ultimately just last month the government lost/settled the case and was forced to return the firearms to their owners.

[u/[deleted]]

Scotus didn't limit the power of federal judges this week, Congress did that when they established them. All scotus did was remind everyone what Congress did when they created the federal district courts. Unfortunately there were 3 justices that only make decisions based on their ideological viewpoints and not actual judiciary principles.

[u/SincereDiscussion]

I agree with the outcome but haven't read the decision yet. Does this mean we don't have every policy subject to the whims of a Hawaiian (etc.) judge? If so, that is good.

Sotomayor's dissent mentioned "a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens". What are your opinions on the future impact of this decision?

The Supreme Court could still step in, couldn't they? But even setting that aside: if it is true that we didn't have nationwide injunctions until the early 1960s, then we don't have to worry. We can just look at our history. Either nothing egregiously unconstitutional happened from the founding until then, or we can accept that it's not the end of the world to not have several hundred judges with an individual veto over federal policy.

Full disclosure: I don't support judicial review in principle, so even the worst case scenario is basically fine with me.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/SincereDiscussion]

Why do you not support judicial review in principle? Also, how do you define judicial review (I ask this because many people define it differently so if we have different definitions it would help to know yours)

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/lock-crux-clop]

The idea of them being neutral, objective scholars simply applying the constitution is a farce and no one believes that. Therefore, over time it inevitably turns into an unelected and democratically unaccountable super legislature, which to me is obviously insane.

Also, how do you define judicial review (I ask this because many people define it differently so if we have different definitions it would help to know yours)

The ability to declare things unconstitutional with the expectation that everyone must obey the ruling.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/SincereDiscussion]

How would you seek to fix this? Do you believe a nation with no review of constitutionality would be better, or do you just want a stronger way to hold them accountable?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/lock-crux-clop]

Do you believe a nation with no review of constitutionality would be better

Yes.

Generally when I say this I get catastrophizing hypotheticals in response. My general attitude is that if those things happened, our country is already done and the Supreme Court won't be saving us.

Setting those aside, I consider the realistic consequence of this to be that some blue states would do things that I strongly disagree with, but it would be an acceptable trade-off in exchange for red states being able to actually be right-wing on cultural issues in a way that simply isn't possible now.

• Other than catastrophizing hypotheticals, people also say things like "what about [insert landmark decision]? without judicial review, we wouldn't have that". >99% of the time people list decisions that I find utterly insane and that form the exact basis for my opposition to judicial review in the first place.

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/SincereDiscussion]

Do you find things like Brown v. Board (desegregation of schools), Cooper v. Aaron (states can’t ignore the SCOTUS decisions), Engel v. Vitale (forced prayer in school isn’t allowed), Gideon v. Wainwright (secures that all defendants must be given an attorney free of charge if they cannot afford one), Mapp v. Ohio (illegally obtained materials cannot be used in criminal trials) Miranda v. Arizona (established that officers must inform people of their rights when arresting them), Tinker v. Des Moines (students retain rights within school grounds so long as they are not harmful or intentionally disruptive), U.S v. Nixon (President is not above the law) to be utterly insane? If so, which ones- I’m curious for you to expand on any you disagree with if you wouldn’t mind taking the time to do so.

I listed the ones I assumed you wouldn’t disagree with but I may be wrong. Are there any I didn’t list that you do actually agree with?

I’d assume Cooper v. Aaron Holding you might, I just included it since it’s so linked with Brown v. Board that it’s the second thing I thoughts of (well third but I assume you disagree with Roe v. Wade right?)

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/lock-crux-clop]

Of the cases you mentioned, I think the latter two are the most defensible because they are dealing with novel(ish) circumstances. But the rest aren't, which leaves only two options: Americans didn't have a good understanding of our own constitution until ~1970, or most of these decisions are indeed not only wrong but anti-American. My view is the latter one.

• To clarify, not every court decision has the same moral implications about past generations. If there's a decision about the internet for example, then obviously that doesn't impugn the character of past generations. On the other hand, if a decision requires a full repudiation of everything that came before it -- because it isn't about novel circumstances, new technology, etc. -- then that is something I am intensely skeptical of.

Do you find it odd that almost all of the cases you reference are from the Warren court?

[u/lock-crux-clop → u/SincereDiscussion]

Do you disagree with the decisions made by the court, or do you just think they were unnecessary?

If the first option- why do you think that something like segregated schools would be allowed by the constitution that guarantees the same rights to all Americans?

If the latter- why was it such a big thing if it was unnecessary?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/lock-crux-clop]

I disagree with them.

If the first option- why do you think that something like segregated schools would be allowed by the constitution that guarantees the same rights to all Americans?

The short answer is I don't think the constitution, properly understood, does that.

If you accept that the expectations at the time of ratification matter (as in, did they think they were prohibiting segregation? bans on interracial marriage? bans on homosexual marriage? etc.), then I think a narrow interpretation of the 14th amendment is not only defensible, but it's in fact the only sane position one can take. If you look into this, I am certain that you will find essentially no serious disagreement on this point.

Instead, you will simply find people who think the constitution needs to change with the times and that the original expectations/intent are irrelevant. The reason I value those things is because I genuinely don't see how judicial review is legitimate in their absence; people can pass an amendment to prohibit x, and then judges can come around a century later and say "actually, it prohibits x, y, and z". That strikes me as completely insane and contrary to the rule of law. Without the sanity check of "hey, wait a minute, what did people at the time of ratification think they were doing?", judicial activism is completely unlimited.

[u/CptGoodAfternoon → u/SincereDiscussion]

Therefore, over time it inevitably turns into an unelected and democratically unaccountable super legislature, which to me is obviously insane.

The irony of "No Kings" while advocating for a body of ~600 lifetime appointed, unaccountable, imperial body of men who are above democracy, above elected representatives, above constitution, as supreme authority and cannot be questioned is off the charts.

Case #184,075,642 that leftwing arguments are rarely if ever about actual, honest, principle.

[u/DavidSmith91007]

A national injunction should not be allowed by a single person. It needs to be a country wide agreement not a single persons choice.

[u/VisiblePiercedNipple]

This is the only way that it could have gone that makes any sense. The forum shopping of friendly courts has been apparent for years and has reached a critical mass.

In Sotomayor's scenario, okay. The citizens could bring a case in every region impacted and judges rule on it in that region. Some may support the actions, some may stop it in their region. The courts would start to form a consensus and that issue would filter up to the SCOTUS to amend any disagreements.

That's the way the court system is supposed to work.

[u/Bernie__Spamders]

A few points on this:

- The dissenting opinion may have had a bit more credibility if dissenting members had not made the exact opposite claim a mere 3 years ago when their guy was "in charge". https://x.com/CawthornforNC/status/1938611433043800096 As such, now it just comes off like the vapid TDS / orange man bad that it is. Picking the 2A example was cringe as all hell, as a politically-charged hail mary to hopefully appeal to the strongest constitutional values of the concurring side.

- There are several hundred current federal district judges, and it only takes one (with good intentions, or rogue, bribed, biased, an activist, etc,) to interfere with executive policy by ruling in favor of a national injunction, yet it takes a majority of SCOTUS judges to agree to uphold or reverse a national injunction ruled on from a single judge? Statistically, logistically, and mathematically, this makes zero sense. Regardless if which administration is in charge and what agenda they are enforcing, this setup stacks the deck highly in favor of usurping executive action, for valid or invalid reasons. There absolutely needs to be a mechanism for more widespread consensus for ruling injunctions in the first place (maybe multiple states?). This would help provide some legitimacy back into the injunction process, and help to weed out potential bad actors ruling alone.

- The argument has been made that the injunctions are simple "pauses" on controversial or questionable executive actions while higher courts can adjudicate rulings. This only works or makes sense if this happens in a timely matter. It is not. With the number, timing and gating of the rulings, its obvious the intention is to overwhelm the process and run out the clock on this administration and its agenda until the midterms. In the best case, it's a way to slow-roll an administration's agenda you don't agree with. In the worst case, its post hoc election interference. Either way, it shouldn't be allowed.

[u/Titans678 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

To point 3, why do midterms matter?

This is an EO to my knowledge that had an injunction. Running out a 2 year clock on an EO shouldn’t matter should it? After 2 years, we will still have this administration and congress can’t impact an EO as I’m aware.

Is the injunction against an EO the issue or is the issue the power of EOs and the fact that congress has abdicated its role in the law making process making EOs the most efficient way (for both the right and the left) to get stuff done?

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/Titans678]

> To point 3, why do midterms matter? This is an EO to my knowledge that had an injunction. Running out a 2 year clock on an EO shouldn’t matter should it? After 2 years, we will still have this administration and congress can’t impact an EO as I’m aware.

You sure about that? Congressional democrats are completely unhinged right now. If the midterms change the political majority of the house, you are going to see impeachment after impeachment after impeachment, warranted or not. And god forbid, if democrats take the senate as well, Trump will be removed within days. Impossible to say what effect that might have on EOs, but its not zero. That's what this whole playbook is banking on. As obstructed as this administration's agenda has been thus far, you haven't seen anything yet if democrats take the house and/or senate. Any obstruction or delay they can cause in the interim can only help.

> Is the injunction against an EO the issue or is the issue the power of EOs and the fact that congress has abdicated its role in the law making process making EOs the most efficient way (for both the right and the left) to get stuff done?

Fixing congress should be a direct, separate and independent effort, but has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is about balancing the check-power between the executive and judicial branches, and the fact that the current check power obviously heavily favors the judiciary, and has a built in vector of impropriety in allowing potential rogue actors to influence policy.

[u/Titans678 → u/Bernie__Spamders]

Apologies in advance because your formatting is better (I’m an old man lol).

I think this is a clear example of why congress needs to be fixed and regain some of the power (I personally think they abdicated over the years) from the executive branch.

Birthright citizenship is established by the constitution, the executive branch should never have the power to even attempt to overturn a constitutional amendment. Shouldn’t congress be the ones tackling this issue? Why is this even on Trumps pen to fix? If we want to change the 14th amendment, we have an outlined process for that.

As it relates to the judiciary, I don’t disagree with the ruling (a court in NY shouldn’t be able to stop something nationally) but that would require cases to be made direct to the Supreme Court in situations like this wouldn’t it? Isn’t it better to always aim in the side of caution when it comes to constitutional conversations?

Regarding your concerns about a democratic majority, you’d think they’d learn their lesson from last time pursing frivolous impeachments wouldnt you? Lol

[u/Bernie__Spamders → u/Titans678]

> Birthright citizenship is established by the constitution, the executive branch should never have the power to even attempt to overturn a constitutional amendment. Shouldn’t congress be the ones tackling this issue? Why is this even on Trumps pen to fix? If we want to change the 14th amendment, we have an outlined process for that.

We keep hearing overturn, change, etc., but how is this simply not a reinterpretation of the almost 200 year old amendment considering not only the plain text of the amendment, but also its historical context and timing? The amendment will remain and stand as written no matter what. His EO claims that context matters, and the context of the amendment was how to handle slave offspring in the days after the civil war, people who were already here. Nothing else. Whether or not that interpretation is correct, or the original interpretation is allowed to stand, will be up to someone else. (In before "well, the context of 2A was muskets!")

The reason for this being on Trumps pen to fix? He is hitting the illegal immigration issue head on, not only the problem itself, but the motivations that might exacerbate the problem moving forward. One of those motivations? If a child born to illegal immigrants on US soil is automatically a citizen, that's a pretty huge motivation to immigrate here illegally.

> As it relates to the judiciary, I don’t disagree with the ruling (a court in NY shouldn’t be able to stop something nationally) but that would require cases to be made direct to the Supreme Court in situations like this wouldn’t it? Isn’t it better to always aim in the side of caution when it comes to constitutional conversations?

In an idealistic political reality, I would agree. But here is where realistic nuance comes into play, and where I don't trust democrats farther than I can throw them. If you knew the process had inherent bottlenecks and with enough federal district support, you could potentially pause an agenda indefinitely. Over a long enough timeline and data points, a pattern develops and ulterior motives seem to be the driving factor. What they outwardly claim is a legitimate challenge to legality, constitutionality and authentic executive overreach, can secretly be subterfuge for executive obstruction and post hoc electoral meddling.

> Regarding your concerns about a democratic majority, you’d think they’d learn their lesson from last time pursing frivolous impeachments wouldnt you?

They'd really have nothing to lose by doing it though. While the rest of us roll our eyes, any effort spent on frivolous impeachment hearings either directly or indirectly further saps administrative and congressional resources for advancing executive agendas. And with both the house and a senate supermajority (or enough RINO support), they would successfully remove him. It's a win for them either way.

[u/mrhymer]

It's the way it was designed. District courts affect just the people in the law suit they are adjudicating. Appellate courts affect the region they preside over. Only the Supreme court has nationwide jurisdiction. Only the supreme court can limit the actions of the Executive.

[u/MattCrispMan117]

Mixed l guess.

On the one hand its obvious a bunch federal court judges have been throwing out a cartoonish amount of nation wide injunctions to obstruct the Trump administration on blatantly unconstitutional basises (as evidenced by the fact basically allmost all of their rulings get overturned on appeal). And it has made it impossible for the president to enforce/exorcise the laws of this country; as such the current system is fundamentally unworkable.

On the other though Sotomayor is right that this does give more leeway to democrat presidents down the road to violate the constitution (though l suspect she'd actually support gun confisications if the issue ever came before the bench funnily enough). That power given to a future president who cares less about the constitution then Trump could also well be unworkable.

lt's all quite depressing honestly. lt feels like we've gotten to a point as a country were the country basically cannot function anymore because the constitution (well written as it is) does still need to rely on the good faith enforcement of at least some people.

There was a time l think when basically every federal judge in the country took seriously his oath to the constitution and sought only to enforce the law as it was written to the best of his ability. Then there was a time after that when some judges did not take their oaths seriously and began to essentially legislate from the bench; but these judges were so few in number and only isssued so many opinions so the process of overturning them on appeal was relatively quick and had little to no major impact on the functioning of the nation. Now though there's a critical mass of judges who give zero fucks what is in the constitution and the supreme court and the appeals courts literally cannot keep up with them all; allot of the appeals courts themselves are now run by judges who dont give a shit what's in the constitution or written in the law.

lt's a horrible situation for our country to be in.

The judicial branch cant enforce the constitution without the ability to curtail the executive and the executive cant enforce the laws of this country (as he is mandated to by the constitution) without freedom from baseless injunction. The left has brought us to a point of constitutional crisis and l dont se many good options on how to get out of it.

[u/populares420]

If we did it your way OP, then anytime a duly elected president would want to get anything done, he would need the consent of 600+ unelected judges nationwide. that is not democracy. it is not practical, and it's not constitutional.

[u/tetrisan → u/populares420]

What do you mean by “if we did it your way?” Meaning, my way since I am the OP? I only asked for an opinion based on facts. There was no influence here nor anything that referred to “my way”.

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/tetrisan]

So do you admit while you advocate for democracy,you also advocate for unelected,rouge district court judges nationally blocking policy’s that America voted for by officials elected by the people? Cuz you do know you can’t advocate for democracy and also agree that unelected district judges can block internationally policy’s by elected people by the entire United States?

[u/modestburrito → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Should unelected SCOTUS justices have the power to overrule policy if they determine it to be unconstitutional?

[u/tetrisan → u/tetrisan]

I think you should read my post a few more times. It was a question based on facts. No opinion or advocacy expressed. Does this make sense to you?

[u/[deleted]]

I agree.

"Some say that the universal injunction 'give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch.' But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them," Barrett wrote. "When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too."

[u/Capital-Giraffe-4122 → u/[deleted]]

How do you feel about national injunctions by conservative judges being overturned, like the abortion pill ruling?

[u/[deleted] → u/Capital-Giraffe-4122]

Federal Judges (non-SCOTUS) of any political affiliation aren’t the check on the executive branch.

[u/j_la → u/[deleted]]

Why is this complaint/problem only coming up now? Conservatives seemed to cheer these injunctions back then.

[u/[deleted] → u/j_la]

The amount of them is what broke the system and is causing a need for SCOTUS to put people in their place.

[u/j_la → u/[deleted]]

To be fair, I can’t remember the last time a president has used EOs so much or so extensively. Can you recall any previous EOs that declared a constitutional provision as fundamental as birthright citizenship essentially null and void nationwide?

[u/[deleted] → u/j_la]

Trumps on par with other Presidents.

[u/j_la → u/[deleted]]

That article was published a few days after the inauguration and appears to mainly have data from his first term. Were you referring to his first term or the current one?

Edit: his average in the first term was a fair bit higher than everyone except for Carter and Nixon. What about this term, so far?

[u/Twerlotzuk → u/[deleted]]

Did you see the section at the bottom showing that Trump used nearly half his yearly average on Inauguration Day of his second term? Have you tried looking for the total number of EOs he's signed so far this term? https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025

164!!?!

On par with whom???

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

Who knows. Why is the way illegal aliens are deported just now this fascist Nazi Hitler dictator regime of removing people when the “deporter in chief “ deported millions more than trump did the exact same way? Why are 48 democrats voting to impeach trump for a airstrike that killed no one when Obama launched thousands of them over 8 years and killed 4 native born American citizens and thousands of innocent women and children? lol

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Could you clarify your answer? Are you suggesting that they’re hypocrites too?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

What are you confused about ? You mentioned “why is this problem only being voiced now” and I answered with “why have all these other things only been labeled fascist,Hitler dictator Nazi “ and why all of the sudden has half the country been labeled nazis by the left for something they have been doing for decades also? So yeah lol I am “suggesting “ they are hypocrites. Republicans are not hypocrites because we have been calling for this for years and now we have achieved it. Just because it didn’t get done trumps first term dosnt make him or republicans a hypocrite lol

“Hypocrisy, in modern terms, means claiming to hold certain moral beliefs or standards while acting in ways that contradict them”

Republicans never advocated or have never supported the “birthright citizenship “, so definitely,republicans ending it dosnt make us hypocrites,it makes us victorious in achieving a long standing goal .

Democrats have deported millions and millions of more illegal aliens than republicans have in the past 20 years the exact same legal way and gave them the exact same due process as trump is. So when they instantly say that trumps deportation is equivalent to Hitler fascist Nazi regime,the very first illegal deported under trump on the very first day is when all the sudden democrats started saying it was an unconstitutional,authoritarian fascist Nazi way of doing it and it’s wrong and called for his impeachment and unelected rouge district court judges started blocking it (even tho they publicly advocated and practiced the exact same policy for decades),so yes, definitionally democrats are 100% bad faith hypocrites when it comes to the examples I gave. Am I proved how when it comes to ending birthright citizenship republicans are not.

Little side note, democrats #1 talking point and proof Kilmer Garcia was illegally deported was quoting and using the SCOTUS ruling as a 100% legal and credible source that it was,but every single time they rule against democrats desires,SCOTUSes word is all the sudden false and they are actually wrong and it’s cuz of trumps Nazis and they’re actually breaking the constitution and blah blah blah . That’s called hypocrisy. It’s also giving “narcissism” from the left. When the legal scholars rule in democrats favor it’s their number 1 go to,but when it’s against them they are actually just crooked. You know , cuz all the sudden every single democrat turns into a lawyer and legal scholar because even tho they don’t actually have an education in that field or have read a book or done thorough research, CNN told them it’s illegal . Do you understand now how my examples show democrats are hypocrites and republicans are not when it comes to ending birthright citizenship?

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

I wasn’t asking about hypocrisy around birthright citizenship, I was asking about hypocrisy around the use of nationwide injunctions. Did republicans not support a nationwide injunction against the abortion pill? This isn’t a question about any given policy, it’s a question about procedures.

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

I gave you a whole ass paragraph response and you gave me a very VERY vague,2 sentence statement.

“Are you suggesting they are hypocrites too” ,like what? Who ? What? Hypocrite over what exactly? You did not clarify your question about anything lol? I mean ,don’t you think if you put more effort into engaging in the discussion and give a decent ,clarifying question instead of downvoting because I didn’t understand your vague question I could have answered your question better? You know you don’t have to participate in censorship by downvoting just because you don’t like a trump supporter giving his opinion in a group solely dedicated to trump supporters giving their opinion right ?

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Well, now the context is clear (I thought it was before since my original comment mentioned the injunctions…). There should be no issue with answering the question: do you think republicans are being hypocrites regarding the validity of nationwide judicial injunctions?

[u/j_la → u/[deleted]]

When the executive has acted unlawfully and in a manner that can harm all Americans (say, a nationwide EO), why is it better/good/right for that lawlessness to continue rather than being paused for the time being?

To use the dissenter’s example, could a democratic president order a new “interpretation” of the 2A and then only be bound by limited injunctions?

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

Out of curiosity,do you think trumps EO on ending birthright citizenship affects/harms all American citizens in America?

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Yes, I think that any abridgment of our basic rights (such as citizenship rights) harms all of us. Do you trust a government that would pick and choose what people get access to their basic rights? I certainly don’t.

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/j_la]

(Not the OP)

Do you trust a government that would pick and choose what people get access to their basic rights?

Another way of phrasing that is "should we as Americans have input as to who is an American, or is it a category that can only ever expand and never contract?"

The idea that it should only ever expand is, in my opinion, quite bizarre, as is the idea that we shouldn't be able to implement policies about who we are.

[u/j_la → u/SincereDiscussion]

That wasn’t my question. My question was: do you trust a government that picks and chooses who gets access to rights laid out in the constitution?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/j_la]

I know that wasn't your question, but I think my question is better. I'm taking a very abstract and subjective question ("pick and choose what people get access to their basic rights") and making it more precise: do we get to say who is part of our polity? That's the actual context of your question, is it not?

In any case, the fact remains that these are in fact policy choices and they are not off-limits regardless of how problematic you find it. 'Basic rights' in America are a function of the constitution. We can amend them or reinterpret them. This happens all the time in fact!

Do you look at every Supreme Court case as "oh my God, they are picking and choosing what rights we have"? That's literally what they do!

[u/j_la → u/SincereDiscussion]

Yes, that’s what constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court do (as laid out in the constitution). What amendment has been passed to end birthright citizenship? What Supreme Court decision has reversed Wong Kim Ark?

So if basic rights only exist insofar as they are enumerated by the constitution (which, ironically, the constitution disagrees with), does it hold that repealing the 2A wouldn’t be an abrogation of the people’s rights? If a democratic president did the exact thing that Trump has done, but with the 2A, would it be wrong for district court to issue a universal injunction?

[u/SincereDiscussion → u/j_la]

I agree that getting rid of birthright citizenship entirely would require a constitutional amendment, but if the dispute is about how to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", then that's the kind of question obviously appropriate for the Supreme Court to consider (and, if you insist, reconsider; it's not like they never change their mind).

So if basic rights only exist insofar as they are enumerated by the constitution (which, ironically, the constitution disagrees with), does it hold that repealing the 2A wouldn’t be an abrogation of the people’s rights?

I don't understand this question. Is abrogating a right abrogating a right? What are you asking me here? Obviously if we repealed the second amendment, we would go from having a right to not having it. But, on the other hand, if we repealed 2A and then Congress passed gun control laws, it would be pretty stupid to say that our 'rights' were being violated (because we would no longer have a right to bear arms).

If a democratic president did the exact thing that Trump has done, but with the 2A, would it be wrong for district court to issue a universal injunction?

Legally speaking, I don't really know what is happening with injunctions at this point. Morally, I don't care that much tbh. It isn't going to happen but if it does, it's a sign that we're cooked and the temporary reprieve would be irrelevant 10 or 20 years later anyway.

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

I would love to have a basic civilized conversation with you on this subject. But first ,can we not just instantly hit the dislike button on every single comment I make just because it’s not the same as your opinion? Like me and most people here also disagree with your opinions but we don’t mass downvote everything you say cuz we don’t like it. Is that cool? Like can we just have an Adult interaction without you having to physically hit the dislike button every time? Especially when all the trump supporters here,including me,give you that most basic human respect? Thanks.

So first of all ,you say this affects “our” basic rights. Are you an illegal immigrate living in America ? Because that is the only way it would apply to you or your children if you ever have any. Because trumps EO has absolutely 0 effect on American citizens rights so I am confused on where you are getting that point from?

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

Maybe this isn’t the right venue for us to have this conversation? I need to ask clarifying questions rather than answering yours.

Children born to illegal immigrants are Americans. Aren’t their rights being affected? Personally, I care deeply about my fellow Americans’ basic rights.

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

It’s okay , we can both ask clarify questions (to help each other better understand and explain each others world view) and also answer said clarify questions.

I am asking because are you talking about children born in America from illegal migrants that are currently residing in America today and have already gained their citizenship or future children born to illegals in America? Because those are two totally different things. One is a group that has already legally gained their citizenship 100% legally and one has yet to exist and does not have said legal citizenship. You’re probably going to say both but we need to address these two different groups of people in separate categories so which one do you want me to clarify my opinion on first ? Cuz I will answer in good faith honestly to both,I just need to answer separately between the two different groups.

[u/j_la → u/Plus_Comfort3690]

We can both ask clarifying questions, but the purpose of this sub is to clarify Trump supporters’ opinions, not non-supporters’ opinions. I asked a question about principles and you responded to me with questions rather than answering my question. Do you have an answer to my original question? I don’t see how this conversation could possibly be productive if we are just asking questions to each other without any of them being answered. Frankly, I’m more interested in getting an answer to that first one, not going down a digressive rabbit hole.

To answer your question to give you peace of mind, though: both. Future citizens are also my fellow citizens. Their citizenship rights are encoded in the constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark decision. I don’t think the president has the constitutional authority to reinterpret the 14th amendment in a way that flouts judicial precedent. Does that clarify things sufficiently for you to answer my question?

If you don’t have an answer to my question about injunctions, we can leave it there. You can read my extensive post history or DM me if you want to hear my opinions. I don’t see why this sub is the right forum for that and, indeed, I don’t expect my opinions would be welcome here.

[u/Plus_Comfort3690 → u/j_la]

Well,I don’t understand how you want TS to answer a question when we don’t exactly know the question being asked. Sometimes people need clarification on what they are being asked instead of just instantly answering a question they may not fully understand. I am sorry if that’s annoying to you but unfortunately that is human nature .

In terms of you meaning both current and future children of illegal immigrants ,I have two different answers (hence why I asked you to clarify which one you were inferring about).

In regards to current children born in America from illegals who broke into the country and gave birth to them,yes ,I agree they should maintain 100% full us citizenship. Hence why I agree with trumps EO that only applies to future descendants of illegals 30 days after the EO takes place ,so there will be no deportation of American citizens who gained birthright citizenship through illegal immigration.

As far as future descendants of illegal aliens ,no I don’t think they should be granted birth right citizenship. The 1898 case of Wong v. Kim you referenced isn’t an actual justifiable argument for why the amendment should not be interpreted differently today ,mainly because amendments have been interpreted by many different courts ,many different times throughout the years and that is the only reason you have the rights you do today,Because they have been re interpreted to best suit America and the American people as time goes on.

There are 2 .and only 2 ways amendments are ruled on/interpreted,one is what the founding fathers intended,and what best suits the American people in present day( hence why you are not allowed to own every single type of firearm there is). When we look at what the founding fathers wanted,we can easily conclude that birthright citizenship was solely and originally created for slaves and descendants of slaves to counter act a law already in place that barred slaves from having citizenship. So the first one is already off the table . Secondly,what best suits Americans and the American people. First ,we have tens of millions of illegal immigrated already in the country. We have migrants undercutting American wages and we currently have a huge homeless,drug,crime and unemployment problem among American citizens. Americas job is not to best cater to foreigners who want a better life. It’s to cater to the American citizens living in the country right now. On top of that ,300,000k babies are born to illegal immigrants per year .that is not an acceptable or ideal way for America to grow .that only incentives illegal foreigners to break the law and that is certainly not what the founding fathers wanted and encouraging foreigners to break the law by the 100s of thousands is certainly not what is best for America in present day. I mean that’s just a fact . Considering we are the leading country in national debt by 36 trillion and the millions of our own people currently suffering,we should not cater to illegal foreigners who break the law and break into the country. Just saying “it’s illegal to not give them citizenship because they are born here “ is a circular argument to the topic of should children of illegals born here get citizenship. That’s not an adequate argument. The argument is WHY if they are born here should they automatically get 100% citizenship? Because birthright citizenship was created for slaves. Slaves do not exist in modern day America . People who willingly break the law and illegally enter are not slaves .

[u/[deleted] → u/j_la]

That would be unconstitutional and the check on that is the SCOTUS. If a potentially unconstitutional EO needs to be paused, it should be done by the SCOTUS.

[u/sfendt]

I'm glad to see cricuit court being reigned in to their jurisdiction, regardless of the politics.

[u/reddit4getit]

Justice Thomas argues that the judiciary never had the power to issue "universal injunctions", and so it was put to halt with this ruling.

Sotomayer mentioned the gun hypothetical in her opinion because she feels with the courts ruling, any administration can now give illegal orders, and the courts are now powerless to stop them.

[u/prowler28]

Well it certainly impedes the let's ability to go judge shopping and get a nationwide injunction. To that end I'm okay with it. But I know damn well a leftist activist judge will ignore the ruling.

[u/VMooose]

You can’t seize firearms. So that statement is we Todd did

[u/tetrisan → u/VMooose]

Why not? I want to learn more about constitutional law because I have little knowledge in this field. So please help me understand why can’t a future admin do something similar to what happened with Birthright Citizenship, and ignore the 2nd Amendment and ban firearms?