7 ms·

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

axus 1y ago
I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.
    - throwaway48476 1y ago
      Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.
      - fzeroracer 1y ago
        And where is federal law derived from? What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?
        Thorrez 1y ago
        >And where is federal law derived from? It's written by the legislature. >What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not? When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weight it against the constitution, and against itself. When ruling how to enforce it, they interpret it primarily against itself.
      - georgeecollins 1y ago
        Yes, but things like rights listed in the constitution have been protected by the supreme court regardless of laws. Things like your Miranda rights don't exist because of any law, they existed because of a supreme court ruling.
      - nobody9999 1y ago
        >Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record. In the United States, the Constitution is federal law. In fact, it is the supreme law of the land. Full stop. cf. US Constitution, Article VI Clause 2.[0][1] [0] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  - pjc50 1y ago
    Realistically, and this is a serious problem, many critical rights in the US only exist because of the court going against the voters. Like, say, the legalization of interracial marriage.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      It can go both ways. For example, in 1890-1930, SCOTUS had a series of decisions that had methodically demolished the then-budging laws pertaining to labor rights and business regulations, enacted with wide popular support, on the basis that they violated "economic liberty" rights that the judges have read into the 14th Amendment use of "liberty". You know, stuff like min wage, 40-hour work week, prohibitions on child labor, mandatory qualification requirements for some professions etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
  - drdeca 1y ago
    You do kind of need courts to rule that something in fact violated a law.
  - EasyMark 1y ago
    There are supposed to be able to declare them Unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional in district 5, why wouldn't it also be unconstitutional in district 10?
sbohacek 1y ago
The administration does not need to appeal to the supreme court. I don't think they would appeal it since it is being enforced as desired. Indeed, this is one of the concerns of the dissenting opinions.
matthewowen 1y ago
The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions
- bluecalm 1y ago
  That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?
  - eschaton 1y ago
    That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
EasyMark 1y ago
Note how they fast-tracked Trump's case so he could do maximum damage before any test of the 14th, and ignored the actual 14th amendment challenges.

axus 1y ago

I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.

throwaway48476 1y ago
That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.
    - fzeroracer 1y ago
      And where is federal law derived from? What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        >And where is federal law derived from? It's written by the legislature. >What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not? When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weight it against the constitution, and against itself. When ruling how to enforce it, they interpret it primarily against itself.
    - georgeecollins 1y ago
      Yes, but things like rights listed in the constitution have been protected by the supreme court regardless of laws. Things like your Miranda rights don't exist because of any law, they existed because of a supreme court ruling.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record. In the United States, the Constitution is federal law. In fact, it is the supreme law of the land. Full stop. cf. US Constitution, Article VI Clause 2.[0][1] [0] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
- pjc50 1y ago
  Realistically, and this is a serious problem, many critical rights in the US only exist because of the court going against the voters. Like, say, the legalization of interracial marriage.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    It can go both ways. For example, in 1890-1930, SCOTUS had a series of decisions that had methodically demolished the then-budging laws pertaining to labor rights and business regulations, enacted with wide popular support, on the basis that they violated "economic liberty" rights that the judges have read into the 14th Amendment use of "liberty". You know, stuff like min wage, 40-hour work week, prohibitions on child labor, mandatory qualification requirements for some professions etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era
- drdeca 1y ago
  You do kind of need courts to rule that something in fact violated a law.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  There are supposed to be able to declare them Unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional in district 5, why wouldn't it also be unconstitutional in district 10?

sbohacek 1y ago

The administration does not need to appeal to the supreme court. I don't think they would appeal it since it is being enforced as desired. Indeed, this is one of the concerns of the dissenting opinions.

matthewowen 1y ago

The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions

bluecalm 1y ago
That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.
Tadpole9181 1y ago
Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?
- eschaton 1y ago
  That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago

EasyMark 1y ago

Note how they fast-tracked Trump's case so he could do maximum damage before any test of the 14th, and ignored the actual 14th amendment challenges.