Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Cry more, snowflake

30 Tuesday Jun 2026

Posted by in Eric Schmitt, social media, US Senate

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Eric Schmitt (r) [2022 file photo].

Today:

Eric Schmitt
[June 30, 2026]

This decision is egregiously wrong. SCOTUS upheld UNLIMITED birthright citizenship.
A bad reading of the 14th Amendment stripped Americans of control over who joins our political community.
I fought this in Court. I’m fighting it in Congress. We must win.
So, if legislation cannot fix it, then we must amend the Constitution. Citizenship belongs to the American people.
I will be filing this soon. We must restore American citizenship and put We the People first. We must fight.

[We the People Amendment
Restores the Bond of citizenship by:
Only Americans and legal permanent residents receive birthright citizenship – not illegal aliens or tourists
Only Americans vote in federal and state elections
Only Americans count for apportionment
Only Americans may hold federal office, and dual citizens are barred
Only Americans receive federal benefits like welfare and Social Security]

Fascist pig.

“…Only Americans vote in federal and state elections
Only Americans count for apportionment
Only Americans may hold federal office, and dual citizens are barred…”

And stupid, too. Do tell us of any non-citizens who hold elected federal office. We’ll wait.

“…not illegal aliens…”

“No Human is Illegal”

Some of the responses to Eric Schmitt (r):

Only US citizen’s can vote in federal and state elections already. To hold federal office, they must already be a US Citizen.
Birthright citizenship means if you are born in this country. A legal permanent resident cannot receive birthright citizenship because they were not born in the US. An unborn child cannot enter the country undocumented or as a tourist.

Well, If they get this changed, then according to Trump his 3 oldest children are Anchor Babies and should be the 1st to be Deported, Trump’s 1st wife did not become a US Citizen intill after Eric was born…So, Go for and then we can follow the law and start with the 3 oldest Trump’s and their children

People have come to this country for many many years with the hope of having a better life. We have always been called the, Land of Opportunity and that’s what makes us a great nation. This country was built on the backs of immigrants looking for something better. Leave the birth right citizenship as it is. We wouldn’t be here today otherwise.

not recover? From what? The last time the immigration laws were substantively changed was 1996. You are as ignorant af. Our population through birth has steadily declined since 1960. We are under the replacement rate. How do you propose we get more bodies into our workforce?
If you are intent on making “America Great Again” you should not forget what made America great in the first place—birthright citizenship was a big part of that—everybody on a level playing field—opportunity for all. Get educated.

Next we’re gonna start arguing about what Pythagoras REALLY meant when he said a² + b² = c² 🙄
It’s plainly written, clear as day. Anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. Saying otherwise is just blatantly wrong.

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Pretty clear what it says Eric. Maybe go back to law school.

Brother, you’re explicitly and objectively wrong about this. Even the drafters of the 14th Amendment acknowledged that it granted citizenship to all babies born in the US, except those born to foreign agents like diplomats.

Yeah, good luck amending the Constitution. It requires both parties to agree to change it. 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate, then 3/4 of the States Legislatures to ratify it before it becomes imbedded into the Constitution. It’s next to impossible and most Constitutional Amendments die in subcommittees. You are welcome to try but it’s not likely going to happen. 😂

I prefer the Constitution to your personal opinion.

Right decision. Good luck with an amendment before the mid-terms…or after. Focus on your constituents versus your ‘ideals’.

So…you’re *not* going to back Rubio for president?

Heh. He has someone else in mind.

They made the right decision. Just because you don’t like the fact that these citizens typically vote against you and your racist party doesn’t mean the system is broken. The wording in the US Constitution is very specific, and it was wonderful to see the Supreme Court protect this constitutional right!

Your opinion. 6 Justices had differing views.

Well, Five and a half.

they only way this works is if it applied retroactively to the Jamestown colony.

So…… how do you prove your citizenship?

Have your papers ready (January 14, 2025)

Tell me you’re racist without telling me you’re racist.

🤣😂 Here for all the dunces who have no idea what’s required to pass a constitutional amendment

Im a little worried about how you will be defining “only Americans”

come on. Only Americans is code for white only.

As any middle schooler knows, a change requires a constitutional amendment. Let us know how that works out for you.

Naturalized citizens should not hold office

Ah, the slippery slope. Definitely not an originalist.

The decision is constitutionally sound and frankly should have been 9-0. If you don’t like it, start the process to amend the constitution

Awww, sucks for you when the SCOTUS actually follows the Constitution.

[….] Lunacy! The US and Canada are the ONLY developed nations on the world who recognize birthright citizenship

“…Both U.S. neighbors, Canada and Mexico, allow unrestricted birthright citizenship, as do all but two countries in South America…” [the Western Hemisphere]

As someone that leans on the side of conservatives I am going to flat out tell you that you are wrong on this one. The very first line of the 14th Amendment clearly states: “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.” It doesn’t mention anything about parents being naturalized or natural born citizens.

If you want to make a constitutional amendment edit, then go through the process for it, but the current U.S. Constitution and the documented speech of the author of that amendment while introducing it absolutely makes it clear that if you are born within the boundaries of the U.S. and are subject to U.S. laws (i.e. are not part of the family of a diplomat who has immunity to U.S. laws) then you’re a citizen. The SCOTUS simply correctly interpreted what the current clearly lays out. I’m disappointed that you are the one supporting a bad reading.

You’re egregiously wrong sir

So much to unpack in those statements but a lot off bullshit and not well thought out

Eric,
You never fail to disappoint.

The supreme court just reminded Trump that he is not an omnipotent potentate and he cannot rule by fiat.

Before jumping on your bandwagon, you will have to convince me that “born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, does not mean what it says. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on birthright citizenship, and in both cases, they upheld the language of the 14th amendment.

This will surely lower the cost of living!

Did your brain cells fight each other when you wrote this nonsense? 🤣🤣🤣

When SCOTUS says NO, you go low! Add a line to that: to hold office, you must prove a basic understanding of civics. A certificate of remedial education would need to be proof of eligibility to run for office

Birthright citizenship should apply if both parents were born in this country.

goodbye Barron. Goodbye Ivanka, Eric, Jr… And Goodbye Donald J Trump Sr.
None of them had both parents born in USA.

Can we add in something about convicted felons being ineligible for public office?

We see what you did there.

Only “Americans”. Schmitt gets to pick who can be classified as an “American.”

How are you a senator who doesn’t understand how the constitution works? Better yet, how are you a lawyer who doesn’t understand?

The U.S. Senate and law schools will take anybody…

Scared of those brown people I see Eric….

The decision upholds the Constitution sir. One would think someone with a law degree would have known what the President did via Executive Order was not legal.

You should leave the country out of protest. Hell, just shoot yourself in a rocket into fucking space

There’s a guy…

Wait wait wait… are you mad they UPHELD the constitution? I didn’t realize there could be a “bad reading” of an amendment. This is when you need to choose your language wisely because when everything flips blue maybe they will find a “bad reading” of something you agree with then you’ll just have to sit there silently with your clown mask on. 🤡

Fool

The Supreme Court already ruled on point one. Americans are already only allowed to vote in federal and state elections. The Constitution doesn’t say citizens so you’ll need an amendment for apportioning. Only Americans can hold federal office already. Only Americans receive welfare and SS already.
This is performative as hell. You’re finding problems where there is none because the Republicans are covering for Trump with the Epstein files and this godawful war.

No it is not egregious. What was egregious was you trying to take away citizenship and deport people who were born here and have never lived anywhere else.

The 5-4 vote in the birthright citizenship case is a warning that all of US law is in terrible danger.

Will this open the Strait of Hormuz? Will this make housing affordable? Will this lower insurance premiums? Will this help hungry families? Will this release the Epstein files?
No. Because Sen Schmitt’s idea is effing stupid.

Feels a little….Nazi Race Law like..

You are egregiously wrong. The Constitution is very clear about this. The Constitution is not a haphazardly thrown together document. Its language is very precise for a reason.

This has already been the law of the United States for 250 years, so it’s not a surprise and not a change. So, there is no such thing as an amendment to it “restoring” anything. What happened here is that Trump attempted an act of constitutional vandalism, and failed.

Eric, I know thinking is hard for you but let’s give it a try. You want “only Americans” to receive birthright citizenship. So how exactly does one go about becoming an “American”? In fact, how did you become an American? You didn’t pass any background check, test or take any citizenship oath. You became an American simply by being born here. Now, I’ll give you time to think about this.

Eric will need a lot of time. He has demonstrated often that thinking is not his stregth

Amazing how you seem to have this sado masochistic obsession with constantly being on the wrong side of history.

Congress can’t pass a spending bill and Eric Schmitt thinks, through the sheer weight of his fantastic personality, he is going to get a Constitutional amendment passed.

There’s that.

Cry about it little bitch

Look kids an asshole that talks

Eric Schmitt should be ashamed of himself. Insisting that the clear and unambiguous language of the 14th amendment could allow any other result is obviously baseless to even a first week law student. Someone whose oath is to the Constitution making such a frivolous claim undermines faith in the judicial system.

You’re not mad at the decision, you’re mad at the Constitution.
You UnAmerican imbecile.

Eric Schmitt – anyone ever tell you that you’re an idiot? You truly are. You claim that the Supreme Court didn’t follow the constitution in its ruling – when in fact it did! And now you want to continue to carve out exceptions. Look, we know that MAGAts like you want to overturn the 14th in its entirety so that you can then argue that there are no people of color allowed to vote and they one count for 3/5 for apportionment , but it ain’t gonna happen. In fact, the original constitution, without amendments, called for the counting EVEYONE – not just those that you deem worthy.
And for the record, states already have laws that say only citizens can vote in state and federal elections. And laws already exist limiting who can receive welfare and SSI benefits. If you feel that they people are getting it that aren’t entitled to it, give the SSA the funds for enforcement instead of cutting it to the bone every chance you get. Seriously, people like you are insufferable.

Yep.

Previously:

Joseph Alito (r) shits the bed, and then doesn’t leave (June 30, 2026)

Joseph Alito (r) shits the bed, and then doesn’t leave

30 Tuesday Jun 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This morning, DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. BARBARA, ET AL. (2026):

[….]

JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting.

This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake. As interpreted by the Court today, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of “birth tourists,” women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home. Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

[….]

Clarence Thomas (r) vomits 91 pages:

[….]

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting.

This Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), would have permanently denied citizenship to blacks as “a subordinate and inferior class.” Id., at 404–405. After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress overruled Dred Scott, first with the Civil Rights Act of 1866, then with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause guaranteed citizenship to persons born and domiciled in the United States regardless of their race. Neither guaranteed citizenship to persons who were not domiciled in the United States.

[….]

Meanwhile, the Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text. Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.

[….]

“Birth tourists”? Is that like “Einstein Visas”? Just asking. Or maybe ask Melania?

“No Human Being is Illegal”

Just throwing shit against the wall:

[….]

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part.

Executive Order No. 14160 establishes new exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. 90 Fed. Reg. 8449 (2025). The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully
disagree with the Court’s constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could—consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

[….]

Hey, Squee wants to know where the post-term party is!

The reviews are in:

jesse ‪@jesseltaylor.bsky.social‬

my god, birthright citizenship was 6-3, with alito, gorsuch, and thomas dissenting, and kavanaugh dissenting as to whether the 14th amendment provides birthright citizenship

the plain language of the 14th amendment survives by one vote

9:36 AM · Jun 30, 2026

Stephen Nuñez ‪@socio-steve.bsky.social‬

Resolved: “the Constitution includes the words that are unambiguously written in the 14th amendment, which is part of the Constitution”

5-4

9:43 AM · Jun 30, 2026

Mark Joseph Stern ‪@mjsdc.bsky.social‬

Donald Trump came one vote away from getting the Supreme Court to say that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented and temporary immigrants, a view held only by fringe far-right nativists until VERY recently. This is shocking. I am stunned.

9:43 AM · Jun 30, 2026

ElieNYC ‪@elienyc.bsky.social‬

With this ruling, the birthright issue is not going away. The right hasn’t really begun *organizing* around getting rid of the citizenship clause. Like Roe, this will be their fight for a generation. And if the Democrats just say “we won” and ignore it, like Roe, the Republicans will eventually win.

9:43 AM · Jun 30, 2026

Moira Donegan ‪@moiradonegan.bsky.social‬

Among other things, a 5-4 ruling on birthright citizenship is an invitation to try again.

10:00 AM · Jun 30, 2026

Hey, Joseph Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh:

“Resolved: “the Constitution includes the words that are unambiguously written in the 14th amendment, which is part of the Constitution’

5-4”

Law
Editor’s note: NPR retracts Justice Samuel Alito story
June 30, 2026 10:51 AM ET
By NPR Staff

Editor’s note: Earlier today, we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. Neither Alito nor the court’s public information office has announced his retirement, and we have retracted the story.

So, it’s a wash.

Mullin v. Doe (25-1083) and Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (25-5)

26 Friday Jun 2026

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Stranger’s Case
[….]
Grant them removed, and grant that this your noise
Hath chid down all the majesty of England;
Imagine that you see the wretched strangers,
Their babies at their backs and their poor luggage,
Plodding to the ports and coasts for transportation,
And that you sit as kings in your desires,
Authority quite silent by your brawl,
And you in ruff of your opinions clothed;
What had you got? I’ll tell you: you had taught
How insolence and strong hand should prevail,
How order should be quelled; and by this pattern
Not one of you should live an agèd man,
For other ruffians, as their fancies wrought,
With self same hand, self reasons, and self right,
Would shark on you, and men like ravenous fishes
Would feed on one another.
[…]
Say now the king,
As he is clement if th’offender mourn,
Should so much come too short of your great trespass
As but to banish you, whither would you go?
What country, by the nature of your error,
Should give you harbor? Go you to France or Flanders,
To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,
Nay, anywhere that not adheres to England,
Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased
To find a nation of such barbarous temper,
That, breaking out in hideous violence,
Would not afford you an abode on earth,
Whet their detested knives against your throats,
Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God
Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements
Were not all appropriate to your comforts,
But chartered unto them, what would you think
To be thus used? This is the strangers’ case;
And this your mountainish inhumanity.

– Sir Thomas More, attributed to Shakespeare

“No Human Being Is Illegal”

Yeah, that guy

27 Friday Jun 2025

Posted by in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process. Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ. News Conference at the White House, 11:30 A.M. EST.

9.18k ReTruths 39k Likes Jun 27, 2025, 9:52 AM

Previously:

Mike Pence (r) – servile sycophant (October 30, 2018)

Your papers (November 10, 2024)

Eric Schmitt (r), Fascist toady (January 22, 2025)

U.S. Supreme Court: Fascism is Un-American, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas Dissent

17 Saturday May 2025

Posted by in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“….The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster….”

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check. Conviction. Check.

Yesterday, Donald Trump (r) has a temper tantrum:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!

5.94k ReTruths 16k Likes May 16, 2025, 4:12 PM

And:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse. The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public. It will also encourage other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go. The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any “PROCESS” but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS. In any event, thank you to Justice Alito and Justice Thomas for attempting to protect our Country. This is a bad and dangerous day for America!

13.4k ReTruths 36.4k Likes May 16, 2025, 4:59 PM

Fascist has to Fascist.

All caps is the Internets equivalent of shouting.

What the U.S. Supreme Court majority (7-2) ordered:

Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 24A1007
_________________
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]

….We have long held that “no person shall be” removed from the United States “without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101 (1903). Due process requires notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and that “afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ” before removal. 604 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 3). In order to “actually seek habeas relief,” a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief….

….The Government does not contest before this Court the applicants’ description of the notice afforded to AEA detainees in the Northern District of Texas, nor the assertion that the Government was poised to carry out removals imminently. The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador, see Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25−cv−951 (D Md.), ECF Docs. 74, 77, where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention, see Application for Injunction 11. The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster. But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose….

….The application for an injunction pending further proceedings is granted. The motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix under seal is also granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit. In resolving the detainees’ appeal, the Fifth Circuit should address (1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025, Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal. The Government is enjoined from removing the named plaintiffs or putative class members in this action under the AEA pending order by the Fifth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The Government may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.

It is so ordered.”

Gee, in a Democracy there is no room for an Autocrat, petulant or not.

We’re going to find out.

5th Amendment – requiescat in pace – (1791-2025)

14 Monday Apr 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

“….nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”

Nice Bill of Rights we used to have there, shame something happened to it.

Jason Kander‬ ‪@jasonkander.bsky.social‬

Imagine learning you sent an innocent man to prison and all you have to do to get him out is ask.

Forget about the political context for a moment. Just imagine you know an innocent person is in prison and you have the power to get him released.

Can you imagine refusing?
[….]
April 14, 2025 at 4:03 PM

Donald Trump (r) can and did.

U.S. Holocaust Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia, “Concentration Camps….”

What distinguishes a concentration camp from a prison (in the modern sense) is that it functions outside of a judicial system. The prisoners are not indicted or convicted of any crime by judicial process.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Fascist pig.

“Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam.”

07 Monday Apr 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

“We will sell to no one, we will deny to no one or postpone what is right or justice.” – Magna Carta

Today, from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 24A949 [pdf]

KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,
Applicants

v.

KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA,
ET AL.

O R D E R

UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,

IT IS ORDERED that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).

/s/
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of the United States

Dated this 7th
day of April 2025.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

We live in a dictatorship.

The U.S. Constitution hangs by a tenuous thread

09 Thursday Jan 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

5-4.

(ORDER LIST: 604 U.S.)
THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
24A666

TRUMP, DONALD J. V. NEW YORK, ET AL. [pdf]

The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.

On social media:

Harry Litman ‪@harrylitman.bsky.social
‬
it’s a glass half-full half-empty situation; or a well-pyramid problem.

On the one hand, Roberts keeps the Court from another outrageous pro-Trump intervention. On the other, 4 justices including Kavanaugh were ready to do it. Competing headlines really.

Will be a pretty interesting sentencing!

January 9, 2025 at 6:36 PM

Marc Elias ‪@marcelias.bsky.social‬

It is not only that Trump got 4 votes, but the stated reason for allowing the sentencing to go forward is that it wouldn’t take much time, won’t lead to jail, and isn’t too inconvenient. SCOTUS did everything but offer to validate his parking and buy hm lunch.

January 9, 2025 at 6:34 PM

34 felonies. Sentencing in New York will proceed tomorrow,

Banana Republic

01 Monday Jul 2024

Posted by in Resist

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“…Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law…”

“…In the majority’s view, while all other citizens of the United States must do their jobs and live their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions, the President cannot be made to do so; he must sometimes be exempt from the law’s dictates depending on the character of his conduct. Indeed, the majority holds that the President, unlike anyone else in our country, is comparatively free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official duties…”

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it official.

By a 6-3 right wingnut majority:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–939
DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v.
UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
[July 1, 2024]

[….]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

[….]

In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.

[….]

The majority relies almost entirely on its view of the danger of intrusion on the Executive Branch, to the exclusion of the other side of the balancing test. Its analysis rests on a questionable conception of the President as incapable of navigating the difficult decisions his job requires while staying within the bounds of the law. It also ignores the fact that he receives robust legal advice on the lawfulness of his actions.

[….]

Finally, in an attempt to put some distance between its official-acts immunity and Trump’s requested immunity, the majority insists that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one [the majority has] recognized.” Ante, at 32. If anything, the opposite is true. The only part of Trump’s immunity argument that the majority rejects is the idea that “the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.” Ibid. That argument is obviously wrong. See ante, at 32–34. Rejecting it, however, does not make the majority’s immunity narrower than Trump’s. Inherent in Trump’s Impeachment Judgment Clause argument is the idea that a former President who was impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate for crimes involving his official acts could then be prosecuted in court for those acts. See Brief for Petitioner 22 (“The Founders thus adopted a carefully balanced approach that permits the criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts, but only if that President is first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate”). By extinguishing that path to overcoming immunity, however nonsensical it might be, the majority arrives at an official acts immunity even more expansive than the one Trump argued for. On the majority’s view (but not Trump’s), a former President whose abuse of power was so egregious and so offensive even to members of his own party that he was impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate still would be entitled to “at least presumptive” criminal immunity for those acts.

[….]

Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. See ante, at 30–32.

[….]

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong. As troubling as this criminal immunity doctrine is in theory, the majority’s application of the doctrine to the indictment in this case is perhaps even more troubling. In the hands of the majority, this new official-acts immunity operates as a one-way ratchet.

[….]

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military oup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

[SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting]

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

And:

[….]

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR has thoroughly addressed the Court’s flawed reasoning and conclusion as a matter of history, tradition, law, and logic. I agree with every word of her powerful dissent. I write separately to explain, as succinctly as I can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States. I also address what that paradigm shift means for our Nation moving forward.

To fully appreciate the profound change the majority has wrought, one must first acknowledge what it means to have immunity from criminal prosecution. Put simply, immunity is “exemption” from the duties and liabilities imposed by law….

[….]

It is indisputable that immunity from liability for wrongdoing is the exception rather than the rule in the American criminal justice system. That is entirely unsurprising, for the very idea of immunity stands in tension with foundational principles of our system of Government. It is a core tenet of our democracy that the People are the sovereign, and the Rule of Law is our first and final security. “[F]rom their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised.” United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 308 (1947) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment).

A corollary to that principle sets the terms for this case: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 220 (1882). We have long lived with the collective understanding that “[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen,” for “[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

[….]

With that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground. Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law—applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government.

[….]

The majority’s new Presidential accountability model is also distinct insofar as it accepts as a basic starting premise that generally applicable criminal laws do not apply to everyone in our society. In the majority’s view, while all other citizens of the United States must do their jobs and live their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions, the President cannot be made to do so; he must sometimes be exempt from the law’s dictates depending on the character of his conduct. Indeed, the majority holds that the President, unlike anyone else in our country, is comparatively free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official duties.

That point bears emphasizing. Immunity can issue for Presidents under the majority’s model even for unquestionably and intentionally egregious criminal behavior. Regardless of the nature or the impact of the President’s criminal conduct, so long as he is committing crimes “pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution,” ante, at 7, or as needed “to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution,” ante, at 14, he is likely to be deemed immune from prosecution.

[….]

The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right.

In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.

[JACKSON, J., dissenting]

[From 2000.]

Your choice in November is between a Fascist narcissist, blatantly enabled by a right wingnut Supreme Court, and a decent human being. Vote accordingly.

If you’re all atwitter and wringing your hands about an artificial 90 minute televised debate you’re a fucking maroon.

Ancien Régime

28 Friday Jun 2024

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The Red Lily (1894), Anatole France

…For the poor it consists in sustaining and preserving the wealthy in their power and their laziness. The poor must work for this, in presence of the majestic quality of the law which prohibits the wealthy as well as the poor from sleeping under the bridges, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread…

Today at the U.S. Supreme Court:

Justices uphold laws targeting homelessness with criminal penalties
By Amy Howe
on Jun 28, 2024 at 1:48 pm

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that prohibit people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the city, Grants Pass, that the ordinances simply bar camping on public property by everyone and do not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment….

[….]

“…the ordinances simply bar camping on public property by everyone…” Probably, also, begging in the streets and stealing bread.

The dissent:

[….]
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–175
CITY OF GRANTS PASS, OREGON, PETITIONER v.
GLORIA JOHNSON, ET AL., ON BEHALF
OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2024]

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option. The City of Grants Pass jails and fines those people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time, including in their cars, if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled-up shirt as a pillow. For people with no access to shelter, that punishes them for being homeless. That is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Punishing people for their status is “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment. See Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962).

Homelessness is a reality for too many Americans. On any given night, over half a million people across the country lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Many do not have access to shelters and are left to sleep in cars, sidewalks, parks, and other public places. They experience homelessness due to complex and interconnected issues, including crippling debt and stagnant wages; domestic and sexual abuse; physical and psychiatric disabilities; and rising housing costs coupled with declining affordable housing options.

It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested. The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused. This Court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular. Otherwise, “the words of the Constitution become little more than good advice.” Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 104 (1958) (plurality opinion).

[…..]

Grants Pass’s Ordinances criminalize being homeless. The status of being homeless (lacking available shelter) is defined by the very behavior singled out for punishment (sleeping outside). The majority protests that the Ordinances “do not criminalize mere status.” Ante, at 21. Saying so does not make it so. Every shred of evidence points he other way. The Ordinances’ purpose, text, and enforcement confirm that they target status, not conduct. For someone with no available shelter, the only way to comply with the Ordinances is to leave Grants Pass altogether.

[….]

Next consider the text. The Ordinances by their terms single out homeless people. They define “campsite” as “any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes” is placed “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.” §5.61.010. The majority claims that it “makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless.” Ante, at 20. Yet the Ordinances do not apply unless bedding is placed to maintain a temporary place to live. Thus, “what separates prohibited conduct from permissible conduct is a person’s intent to ‘live’ in public spaces. Infants napping in strollers, Sunday afternoon picnickers, and nighttime stargazers may all engage in the same conduct of bringing blankets to public spaces [and sleeping], but they are exempt from punishment because they have a separate ‘place to live’ to which they presumably intend to return.” Brief for Criminal Law and Punishment Scholars as Amici Curiae 12

Put another way, the Ordinances single out for punishment the activities that define the status of being homeless…

[….]

….The best the majority can muster is the following tautology: The Ordinances criminalize conduct, not pure status, because they apply to conduct, not status.

The flaw in this conclusion is evident. The majority countenances the criminalization of status as long as the City tacks on an essential bodily function—blinking, sleeping, eating, or breathing. That is just another way to ban the person….

[….]

The majority proclaims, with no citation, that “it makes no difference whether the charged defendant is homeless, a backpacker on vacation passing through town, or a student who abandons his dorm room to camp out in protest.” Ante, at 20. That describes a fantasy. In reality, the deputy chief of police operations acknowledged that he was not aware of “any non-homeless person ever getting a ticket for illegal camping in Grants Pass.” …

[….]

I remain hopeful that our society will come together “to address the complexities of the homelessness challenge facing the most vulnerable among us.” Ante, at 34. That responsibility is shared by those vulnerable populations, the States and cities in which they reside, and each and every one of us. “It is only after we begin to see a street as our street, a public park as our park, a school as our school, that we can become engaged citizens, dedicating our time and resources for worthwhile causes.” M. Desmond, Evicted: Property and Profit in the American City 294 (2016).

This Court, too, has a role to play in faithfully enforcing the Constitution to prohibit punishing the very existence of those without shelter. I remain hopeful that someday in the near future, this Court will play its role in safeguarding constitutional liberties for the most vulnerable among us. Because the Court today abdicates that role, I respectfully dissent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has told us what we are. All that’s left is to haggle over the price.