Betray the very president that nominated you and the will of the people based on insane legal rulings that fly in...

Alito's dissent is formalist and procedural to the point of obstructionism. His argument is essentially that no court has the authority to stop the federal government from taking actions which cause irreparable harm to citizens and persons protected by the Constitution SPECIFICALLY AGAINST the exact kind of summary judgment by a strong executive.

The most salient question is this: if not SCOTUS, then who? There is no higher court to which things can be appealed. This means in practice that the government can act brazenly and unlawfully first and claim lack of jurisdiction over the consequences. We know this because this is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED with the whole CECOT saga. Procedural faggotry and in-the-weeds formalism is all well and good and has its place but what SCOTUS heard here was not procedural -- it was Constitutional. The basic question it answered in its ruling on injunctions and universal relief was whether or not the government can do whatever it wants first and justify it later. From an originalist standpoint, and in the full context of who the Founders were, what their values were, what they did, and what they were fleeing: does a government capable of acting with complete executive impunity cohere with the genesis of our country?

No. It doesn't.

fuck you retard
never insult the constitution again

Judges should interpret the law, not play party politics. I thought activist judges were a bad thing, right?

supposed to

supposed to

supposed to

that's not how it actually works, though.

For all his faults Trump is the most based in your face President we’re going to have in our lifetime. If he can’t do it no one will. It’s a very depressing portent of what is to come for this country.

betrayed

Their job is to interpret the law, not be scraping and bowing yesmen who rubber-stamp everything.

It's maddening, honestly, that MAGA has so little intellectual rigor. No matter what the scenario is, there is no good evidence that MAGA has any red lines or values at all. It something is bad, it is bad only and to the exact extent that it is bad FOR THEM. The moment it starts being good for them, it's no longer bad in the slightest and it never was and they'll call you a retard for remembering a point in time where they said so.

It's a legion of hyperpoliticized goldfish brains floating around in a trash bag.

government can do whatever it wants first and justify it later.

Of course thats why George Washington crushed the Whisky Rebellion.

So, what, your argument is that we shouldn't care about the Constitution because it's already being trampled? This is like getting drunk, hitting pedestrian on the sidewalk, and getting out to shoot them to death... because you already hit them so you might as well just shoot them.

Be thankful that they exist. So long as they apply the rules relatively fairly it is a new win for you.

If trump wasn't meant to just be a pressure valve he would have pulled a

the courts have their ruling now let's see them enforce it

But he doesn't care, he is either happy with the decision or knew it would be like this to begin with because now his administration can do nothing and pull the "well we tried folks!" Card. Once again miggers are delusional

So long as they apply the rules relatively fairly

LMAO. Pur jewdicial system doesn't work like that

if not SCOTUS, then who?

Nobody because the separation of powers were clearly defined. That's like asking who you're supposed to go to if congress passes a law unanimously in accordance with established procedure but you just don't like it. Not only is it not the court's place to interfere with article two powers, it falls wholly outside their power to do so and any such interference is improper and unconstitutional. Or does the executive get to make their own designations on constitutionality outside of their defined article two powers? You don't get to have it both ways.

Why are you arguing about shooting anyone faggot. You are only shoring up the judiciaries power so when gun bans kick in doesnt matter how long it takes the Supreme Court to rule on it constitutionally becaus it will still be effectively dead until the justices decide to take up a relevant case.

who checks scotus then you dumb nigger? the fact is illegals are not citizens and are not protected under the constitution. we fucking deported millions of spics in the 30s that were citizens because they were parasites. we can do it again, who gives a fuck about muh it can happen to us. no it won't. if we let our enemies win then we lose

Nobody because etc

You are not understanding the point I'm making here. Without the power of the court to enjoin likely-unconstitutional government actions WHICH CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM, nothing can stop the government from pulling any number of end runs on the entirety of the Constitution first and playing it off however it wants later. Injunctions are ALREADY unenforceable. The judiciary has no enforcement capability, no police force, no army. All it has is an injunction which TEMPORARILY restrains governmental actions based on a very high bar of applicability. Without injunctions, the executive can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. This is NOT the spirit of a carefully restrained system designed explicitly to prevent EXACTLY this kind of literal tyranny from happening.

As for the rest... if you don't understand the logic of Marbury, there's nothing I can likely do to help you with that. While judicial review is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, it is an implicit component thereof such that without it there is no way the government can function as framed. It is not that it "makes sense" but that if we assume rational intent from the Framers, there is categorically NO OTHER WAY the government they created could function.

The President nominates them and the Senate confirms. Congress has the power of impeachment to remove justices from the court.

it is an implicit component thereof such that without it there is no way the government can function as framed.

no it's not you fucking faggot leftist shill. the judicial branch is not the legislative and executive branch which judicial review allows them to be, what the fuck is wrong with you? our govenrment can't function now because of activist judges. you faggot. you stupid bitch

doesn't work when half the country are nigger and spic loving kike leftists that want to see the usa burn because they hate white people. yes, this is the reality of the situation

Feeling a little emotional, I see.

I got triple sevens and not a single bot was able to identify it, because they're all bots.

Judge does what judge is supposed to do

We should just get rid of our laws and rights just to deport illegals

I legit think people like you can't even think ahead of time for more than a few days.
What do you think happens when someone you greatly opposes comes into power and all the protections meant to limit what they can do had been removed?

you're a dumb faggot leftist shill that unironically says the judicial branch should have the power to legislate. it's pure malice

oh shut up you stupid fucking faggot. what happens is one size seizes power and keeps power. that's all this is about. eventually all this shit will be destroyed by your enemies because they don't believe in muh checks and balances and rule of law. they want power, they are doing everything to take it while you cuck out like a fucking faggot

no, if we kill our enemies they are dead. that's what happens

likely-unconstitutional

Irreparable harm

deportation

SCOTUS has not held that deportation is an irreparable harm. It's not even their position that it's a punishment of any sort. You seem confused. Political questions are not the realm SCOTUS works in. Just like as I alluded to before, constitutional questions aren't the realm of the legislature or the executive. If the people have an issue with the political implications of standing law, or executive policy we have procedures for remedying that. Having SCOTUS try to pull an endrun on the rest of the system, because the majority of the seats are held by hardcore institutionalists who care more about the short term reputation of the court than operating within their established powers, is not a valid alternative.

What is the final solution to the (((judges))) question?

If (((voting))) doesn't work, and your race is getting targeted... What do you do, ameribro? Think!

There’s no such thing as a “conservative” justice of the SCOTUS that’s just media agitprop. The job of the Federal court system is to resolve disputes related to the power system and to protect the interests of the ruling / prevailing power bloc in society — ie, liberals. Illegal and immigration flooding generally is an important established interest of the ruling power bloc so the courts will protect it, full stop. They do this by picking and choosing whatever precedent best represents that interest and occasionally making a new one if needed. A strict or interpretational reading of the law is used as desired. Therefore the courts have built up a huge library of precedents covering every position and it’s the judge’s job to pick the best match for protecting the interests of the ruling power bloc and defending that decision in their opinion piece so as to not be accused of picking a ruling at random).

It doesn’t matter that a strict reading of the law + the author’s own writings on it supports the opposite ruling. That simply wasn’t the needed precedent in this case. This will not change no matter how many times Trump tries to fight in courts because he is not in the ruling power bloc and his interests don’t matter. IF a court rules in his favor at all it’s because the judge felt that a given power is too important for the power structure as a whole to weaken just because Trump is using it atm, ie, being able to fire individual people appointed by President. But mass immigration? Nah get fucked that’s just the way it is and will be in America. Don’t like it? Tough shit, both you and they knew you won’t do what it takes to get back in power.

The two "conservative" justices who sided with Trump are the two he didn't pick. Fucking kek!

If the founders wanted judges to have the power of arbitrary injunctions, then it would have given them that.

The check on POTUS is the congress having the power to impeach, it's not the judiciary job to say what actions it thinks are good and bad.

Because fuck the constitution

First amendment didn't kill mods

Inb4 your excuses. If Jews can make money posting child porn, I demand total moderator death to uphold the first amendment considering it's also the second amendment

You'll make excuses for that too, especially if you're a boomer

So basically constitution is fucking useless. Don't need it. Unironically wanna see the original burned so we never have to bring it up again

trump should file an injuction on supreme court rulings

Seems to me braindead demagoguery has worked just fine for the politcal left for the last 80 years buddy.

i find it very fitting to clownworld that the only judge with grit, convictions and backbone is that nigger clarence thomas.

all the other judges are in my humble opinion at best luke warm piss that go with the jewish mainstream.

kek that image is so on point

They are co-equal branches of government

Interesting, right? That’s how the SCOTUS does its messaging. Like religious leaders they strategize their opinions and who makes them to send messages. For example they wanted to make it look like who picked who for the seat doesn’t make any difference and that they’re at least can some sympathy for conservatives, etc.

Their job is to protect immigration, but they’re also concerned about pushing an actual constitutional crisis because that would reveal that they actually have no power, so they feel that they need to give a little in order to keep the Executive engaged.

They weren't nominated by Trump, they were nominated by his Jewish lobbyists while he signed their decision. They have not betrayed anyone because they are still loyal to their handlers.

kick the jews out everything instantly improves. 90% less problems.

Germany is worse than ever, and its never had less Jews.

your constitution is like running windows 3.11 in 2025

amendments that give every woman,child and nigger the right to buy and own deadly firearms. its such an insane idea that has been normalized thet you don't even see how wrong this is.

anyway your entire country is a mess and i wish you all the best - which is getting nuked back to hell cause it's beyond fixing.

Exactly which means that the judiciary does not have the power to say what the POTUS does

we sent 6million back to satan and had europe cleansed for over half a century (= half a century of peace and prosperity).

at least we put up a fight. you guys where just conquered without any resistance. and ever since used as cattle and a tool for their world domination plans.

They decide if something is unconstitutional. The President himself is not supposed to be legislating, writing his own laws. He has the House and the Senate to write new laws or repeal old ones.

Why is the sheboon sitting when all the others in the back row are standing?

pax-Americana, you should say Thank You

They decide if something is unconstitutional.

There is no constitutional power to decide what is constitutional.

You are repeating a leftist lie.
There is no power to interpret the constitution.
Since that would be giving judges the power to invent their own version of what it means.

A judges interpretation of it is not more legally authoritative than the president's

Illegal aliens are not citizens and are not entitled to constitutional entitlements you dense fucking faggots

I suggest going out and killing your enemies instead of shitposting on the internet then, lmao.

peak golem

So the President is Judge, Jury, and Executioner? This sounds like a despot who acts on his own whims.

The president is the executive and very much acts on his own whims. Guided by his vision of the USA and his oath to defend the constitution.

The judges are judges, and their power is to settle legal cases. Not to invent injunctions and message the president with complaints and tips for how they would do it.

Not true, because when executive and legislative win is always bad, and when judges win is always good. No harmony between the parts produce only a schizo like state and clown world.

This used to be called Checks & Balances, a principle of government that ensures separate branches have the power to prevent actions by other branches and share power. I guess, like cursive, they don't teach that anymore.

So what actions can the president take to interfere with a judge's ability to settle a legal case?

If trump starts arresting scotus, you would say that is just checks and balances?

Something needs to be done. They have lost ALL respect that those who supported them still held. Now the entire right hates these traitors as much as the left already did.

Trump must ignore their bullshit and continue to deport non-white invaders.

t. King of the Earth System and Duke of Luna

his oath to defend the constitution.

And if the President betrays or ignores that oath and violates the Constitution, it is up to either Congress or the Court to intercede and reign him in.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would be appalled by the current state of government.

Every MAGA is a binary thinker

The party of labels, identity politics, and everything I don't like is Hitler is the trye nuanced option, right?

All this shit is designed to be polarized because it makes it easier for the tribes to take action, all sides, all walks of life. This is how decision are made for normies.

nooooo you must make trump a king and dictator

Go fuck yourself maga traitor

And if the President betrays or ignores that oath and violates the Constitution, it is up to either Congress or the Court to intercede and reign him in.

It's the SCOTUS that's violating the constitution by inventing arbitrary injunction powers for themselves. And it's up to the POTUS and congress to reign hem in.

betray the very president that nominated you

no such thing. They are selected for life and are supposed to uphold the rule of law, not suck the balls of the retarded orange fucknugget that got them in.

get appointed to be a supreme court judge not a stooge of a blackmailed zionist

rule according to your conscience rather than party affiliation

whats the problem? they are literally doing their job. they dont work at mcdonalds, they work at the supreme court. their job is to judge according to the law, not according to the whims of the operation warpspeed front man

SCOTUS is reactive. Why can't the President get a Republican dominated Congress to legislate? Trump celebrated SCOTUS blocking Biden's unconstitutional executive orders. Many examples, one was Biden's student loan forgiveness. So who decides EO legality? This repeal, which Trump and Republicans in Congress celebrated, showed not Biden, not the President.

whats the problem?

They are supposed to rule based on the constitution, not their conscience. How we are even debating the definition of birthright citizenship is amazing. There is nothing vague about it.

but why isn't the sky green?

I noticed you didn't answer my question since the answer would unravel your idea for how the US government is structured.

What actions can the president take to interfere with the judiciary deciding cases?

who decides legality of eo

The president's actions being legal or illegal is to be decided by congress in an impeachment hearing.

But nobody has any official authority to decide what is constitutional in abstract. The congress might find the president guilty of violating the constitution, but that doesn't officially "illegalize" the eo. It just stops the POTUS from doing shit.

We can make an EO illegal by making a constitutional amendment saying it is illegal.

We know where to dump illegal alien gang members.

The Executive Branch appoints judges to the Judicial Branch, that is an executive check over the judicial. Most of those judges were appointed by Republicans, several by Trump himself. What does it say that they don't agree with his EO's? Has Trump even read the Constitution? We know he doesn't read his daily briefings and executive summaries.

In a judicial review, a court may invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority. For example, an executive decision may be invalidated for being unlawful, or a statute may be invalidated for violating the terms of a constitution. Judicial review is one of the checks and balances in the separation of powers—the power of the judiciary to supervise (judicial supervision) the legislative and executive branches when the latter exceed their authority.

The Executive Branch appoints judges to the Judicial Branch, that is an executive check over the judicial.

That's not interfering with their decisions though.
The judiciary has unquestionable, uninterruptible authority to decide cases.

what does it say that they disagree about something

It says they have different politics and ideas than trump.
For leftoids who are a hivemind and get all their opinions from the television, this is a very strange set of events.

There is no constitutional provision for judicial review. It's an unconstitutional power grab and anyone who supports it is a traitor to the republic.

I followed the Supreme Court hearings and many things were explained such as injunction powers, they're not new. I can't explain everything to you, or answer all your questions to your satisfaction. I will keep following the Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship and see how they decide.

scotus explains its own power grab as legitimate

shocker
There is still no constitutional provision for that invented power and so they and you are traitors together.
Nothing more needs to be explained.

Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.

we need to violate the constitution to uphold it

that might fool the blacks in the audience but people with brains can see it is not a serious take.

I can't babysit you all day. If you have any concerns talk to a local attorney or law professor.

You are embarrassing yourself with no way out at this point so I release you to go have a cry

They need your help, Trump's solicitor general was failing badly, had no answers. They need you to try the case in front SCOTUS. Tell them they have no power over G-d Emperor Trump

SCOTUS is going to decide to limit their own power trust me bro they are just telling the truth

Your whole conception of power dynamics is absolutely retarded. Typical CNN mental case

this is obviously the plan:

bring in millions of invaders

insist on "due process" for each one

bring in millions more while the legal system is bogged down by said "due process," only deporting a fraction of them

demographic shift leads to country accelerating towards being a permanently blue, brownoid leftist shithole

anyone who supports this, or tries to invent semantic loopholes via the constitution, is a traitor or an enemy
they need to be put to death and disposed of in mass graves - there's no negotiation or discussion to be had with them
when they open their mouths to rationalize the death of our country via this process - they need to be cut off with a bullet, it's the only answer

you shouldnt overhype your clusterfuck of a system.

even if you remove all the lies and malvolence of the demonrats its still a burning dumpster start 2 end.

I think trump admin should just say they don't recognize injunctions as legitimate judicial authority.
And cite the constitution as evidence. That's it.
Just throw down at this point. Let the congress decide it.

You and your disgusting fat maga brethren won't do shit. Ever.

Trump used to be funny now Trumptards are just a bunch of whiny bitches

they didn't actually rule that he couldn't use the AEA, but idiots are going to claim they did. The dissenters (alito and thomas) were right though, they didn't have jurisdiction to try the case because there had not been a denial of injunction by the lower court.

overhype

well I think it's good but i'm not overhyping it in this case. I'm just explaining it clearly because there are many misunderstandings in the public consciousness which are maliciously propagated for the purpose of weakening it.

The main point is that it is implicitly recognized that everyone has different views about what the constitution means and what counts as wrong and illegal vs good/necessary....
And so nobody has authority to say who is right for certain... but instead it's basically "the preponderance of the votes" of congress which act as a proxy for the will of the people which instead answers the question "what should we do about it".

We live in a democracy

doesn't exist in the Constitution, leftist faggot. Your word is code for "rule by democrats"

continue with deportations

blanket pardon for everyone kicking out illegals

There . I solved the problem

SCOTUS has not held that deportation is an irreparable harm

By placing an injunction on trump's retarded plans, yes, it has implicitly ruled that deportation without due process is likely an irreparable harm; i.e. a harm which is unable to be compensated by money or a violation of constitutional rights. By enjoining the Trump admin and remanding the decision down to the lower courts, it does two things primarily.

First, it says "fucking stop that shit immediately." Second, and this is more nuanced, by refusing to rule on the constitutional amendments Trump's administration may likely be violating such that an injunction is necessary, it tells the lower courts to interpret all other case law as it currently exists. Even Alito's (very ideologically motivated) dissent makes no attempt at anything more than a procedural argument.

SCOTUS is essentially telling circuit courts that it IS within their purview to enjoin the administration and that they will not take special liberties with edge case constitutional amendments.

In other words, as relevant constitutional law is currently and still interpreted:

all immigrants are persons under relevant amendments and have a right to due process

vis-a-vis birthright citizenship, "jurisdiction" includes the definition and tests established in Wong Kim Ark

They don’t even do that

"Democracy" isn't just a buzzword used in oppositional partisan politics. It is an entire theory of governance with subtypes and offshoots. The general philosophy draws from the directionality of power. In a monarchy or other kinds of elite-governed institutions (e.g. oligarchy, aristocracy, etc) the people have varying degrees of power, but power ultimately flows from the top down -- when the elites and the people are in conflict, all systemic levers are available to the elites where fewer (and sometimes none) are available to the people.

Democracy, in contrast, is any system in which power flows from the people upwards. It's best understood by comparing and contrasting direct democracy (wherein everyone directly votes on everything) and republic (where people vote to elect an empowered coterie of representatives to implement their will). Both are "bottom-up" structures as power theoretically flows from the bottom up.

Keep in mind that all of these things are idealized -- a subverted or captured democratic government can likely still be called a democracy if its formal structures still exist in a pure capacity... just a struggling, declining, or compromised democracy.

The more you know!

Legalism has its place sure. Deciding to not deal with an invasion by fighting aged males with criminal records should not be left up to months long debates and legal proceedings. It is an imminent threat that must be acted on first, sort the details after. Our government operates like a fucking 18th century bicycle that is awkward, clumsy, and not at all practical for everyday use.

Judges must hang, all of them. No exceptions

It's a propaganda buzzword and always has been.

The only proper use of the word democracy is to reference the government of ancient athens

Cool opinion!

It is the consensus opinion of the right

Procedural faggotry and in-the-weeds formalism is all well and good and has its place but what SCOTUS heard here was not procedural -- it was Constitutional.

TROs are entirety a creature of procedure you fucking retard. The court shouldn’t have even made it a constitutional issue to begin with. That is why this ruling is so absurd.

t. actual lawyer

Romanians seem to understand US legal theory better than Americans

AI

president position is temporal

judges sit on their asses for life

gee anon I wonder

Government reform

The root of the problem is people enter USA illegally and when caught the laws says they must go to court before being kicked out even though they 99.9% WILL be kicked out.
It cost a fortune to run the courts and they are YEARS behind schedule.

Judge Dredd is the solution.
Empower a few to be judge, jury, and executioner.

doesn't understand what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means

assumes it's superfluous text instead of doing research

Here's a lawyer explaining it.
youtube.com/watch?v=aln-A6kP-bs

Reread Polybius.

i understand you're a complete and total faggot

Thins supreme court justices should have "allegiance" to a President

The Constitution means nothing if can't have my way

God I love MIGAfaggots, always good for a laugh. You niggers can just say you want a King you can kiss the feet of instead of all these theatrics. It's like watching faggots in denial about being faggots every day on this board. I truly feel sorry for the other Americans who have to put up with you.

the President is the only one with the popular mandate so yes. The Court derives it's legitimacy from a monopoly on violence through the feds who carry out the boots on the ground work. GL enforcing it faggots

b-but thw judges question

This means literally nothing

Based educated constitutional scholar in this thread

I promise not all poltards are retarded anon

kek

Pilgrims were the original illegal aliens.

You niggers can just say you want a King you can kiss the feet of instead of all these theatrics.

Projection. You want people in black robes to ignore what the legislators intended in the law, and substitute their 180 degree inverted reality interpretation instead. They're the ones acting like kings, both legislating from the bench and claiming supremacy over the president in matters that are exclusively reserved for him.

Jewpreme Court also allowed the Civil Rights Act

ILLEGALS ARE NOT CITIZENS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTIONS ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED. Why are we still having discussion with these people, theyre incapable of common sense and love making simple things as complicated as possible. Then calling it democracy

betray the very president that nominated you and the will of the people based on insane legal rulings that fly in the face of all logic

Their job is to interpret the constitution, you fucking retard.

Respect constitution

We have gun laws

Hypocrites.

It is time to get rid of human rights and empathy. China doesn't have them and they're going to buy the US out and do all this for us.

NOOOO YOU NEED TO HAVE PRINCIPLES

Objective morals don't even exist
"Oooooh i'm being logically consistent with my ethical principles"

Here lies faggot, he was ethically consistent and then he starved a very virtuous nobody

You can have principles when you recombine CHURCH AND STATE. Until then it's an egoist free for all. Ends justify the means. It has been so since they accidentally the shall not be infringed part.