The Supreme Court just ruled limiting nationwide injunctions by district judges. Major victory for the Administration on items of national importance. I'm wondering if it will affect the future rulings on trapping. For example, will it hinder judge shopping where a California based District Judge restricts trapping of wolves in the Great Lakes States? I hope so.

I was watching the rulings come out on scutus blog this morning. There was speculation there that things will shift to class action lawsuits to work around it. The courts will need to address qualifying a class to keep that from getting out of control.

The ruling was doubly rewarding when reading Justice Barrett's comments regarding justice Jackson's moronic dissent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...p-admin-punts-on-birthright-citizenship/

Jackson is an activist, not a Justice imo.

Kudos to Barrett

I agree with the ruling, but this opens the door to abusing individual rights. I always remember the strategy of McCain/ Feingold.

Jackson is a national embarrassment.

Lower courts and state legislatures have been ignoring SC rulings with impunity.
Doubt this will change much.

And may bite us when things flip the other way

Jackson is a diversity hire who doesn't even know what a woman is!

Downright catty in her scathing rebuke of Jackson. ACB, may be a neocon plant but she broke out the jurisprudence beatch on that one. It was spectacular.

Both Dem and GOP presidents over the last several administrations have not faired well with Federal district judges blocking many exec orders. There are 94 federal district judiciaries and only a handful get used, based on if it is a liberal or conservative iissue being judicated. The one thing I was hoping this SC decision would have done would have clarified the birthright issue better. Right now there are over half of our 50 states that were not even states when the 1`4th amendment was ratified and this opens up for all sorts of who is or who is not a citizen based on birthright. Hope they can or will get this resolved and quickly.

Bryce

Well, you know, hire the handicapped they say……..

Osky

Jackson isn't even fun to watch

The difference between a God and a Supreme Court Justice is God doesn’t think he’s a Judge is an old Fed saying.

THIS!!!

It is ridiculous for a judge from a different state that has no problem with wolves to be able to regulate and restrict the taking of wolves in a state that does have a problem.

There goes the 9th circuit side money from whoever needed court intervention.

We will see what happens when a president takes office and put out an executive order banning guns. Then what? It only takes one crazy fool to make things very interesting.

That's clearly a constitutional violation and would fall into the courts purview.

Somewhere, someplace - Soros is having a melt down, Lol.

Stated she was against and imperialist legislature.

Guess she has no problem with an imperialist judiciary.

A true national embarrassment. An activist with with a black robe.

We will see what happens when a president takes office and put out an executive order banning guns. Then what? It only takes one crazy fool to make things very interesting. [/quote]
That's clearly a constitutional violation and would fall into the courts purview. [/quote]

So is birthright citizenship. 14th amendment. And look at that controversy in the courts. Our rights are always getting walked on.

I hope Soros is having a really wonerful meltdown. the only thing better would be for me to be the one to evacuate his cranium. along with all of his concubines.......

Just like banning bump stocks. You won't be able to buy a gun in certain districts until the Supremes rule on it. So people in certain areas will have their rights violated until this works it's way to the Supreme court. This is the problem IMHO with trying to deal with nationwide policy one district at a time. However, it will feed a lot of lawyers.

So much peace and love

Maybe, but it creates a disparity that demands resolution that the Supremes can't just ignore. The other option is one district violating the rights of all and that can be ignored since all are getting screwed equally.

The courts are not determining the outcome. The courts are stopping an action, not producing an action. They are not screwing anybody that is not already being screwed.

Too nice for that person.

Oh I didn’t realize talking about murdering people was allowed as long as it’s people you don’t like. My bad

Short rope and a tall tree would be more fitting....

So the law of the land according to a former supreme court is that the Constitution says: The Fourteenth Amendment states that "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"
, which has been interpreted to grant birthright citizenship to most individuals born in the U.S.

President takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Then he E.O.s this right gone.

How do you deal with this? I don't know?

Dirt, I think it's really going to take a Convention of States to correct the error in thinking when this Amendment was ratified. I still would like to see the 17th removed from the Constitution.

He deserves it. The world would be a better place.

Wasn't this debated by congress that it was not for people coming in to the country but for slaves children?

Maybe? The Supreme court has made a ruling. It is the law. People can challenge the law. I'm not sure a President can violate the law to challenge it?

every Representative and Senator swears a similar Oath to the Constitution...

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" President Andrew Jackson

And Jackson most certainly did violate it. Marshall ruled the the Cherokee most certainly had the right to sue and keep their land, Jackson sent them to Oklahoma anyway.

SCOTUS, by design has ZERO enforcement power. Instead they rely solely upon the coequal branches either complying or not with recourse to impeachment as the corrective measure.

SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF

There's the fine print everyone is conviently ignoring. These illegals are citizens of other sovereign nations subject to the laws of those nations. Heck, that Mexican jewess cartel mouthpiece has said as much when she speaks of her citizens in our country.

Nobody is ignoring that. They are in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This has been decided by a former Supreme court.

The court cannot impeach Presidents. Congress can, but won't while the President's party is in charge.

Define jurisdiction, please?

Under the power of local law? If so then any visitor could argue for citizenship or you might lose your's when visiting a foreign country.

I would opine under the naturalized jurisdiction as in born to a citizen as one might think of a Frenchman being French if born to French parents as a citizen of France as that is the closest thing we have as Americans to an ethnicity of our own.

BTW, you as a citizen are still subject to US legal jurisdiction no matter where you may be on the globe. Same for these illegals they are subject to the laws of their country of origin.

The grey area would be stateless persons as we saw at the end of WW2 but were not talking about that.

We know what the "intent" of the 14th was, its just a matter of ........can the liberal lawyers convince the Justices otherwise.

"The Supreme Court has historically interpreted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the context of birthright citizenship to mean that individuals born in the United States are automatically citizens, provided they are not born to foreign diplomats or other individuals who are not subject to U.S. laws. This interpretation was solidified in the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Court ruled that a child born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents was a U.S. citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, as his parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign government.

This interpretation aligns with the common law principle of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth), which was intended to be enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure broad and inclusive citizenship rights."

"intended to be enshrined" is not the same as "enshrined".

I "intended" to be a million dollar lottery winner; but, alas...

Native Americans born in the US were not clearly considered citizens based on the 14th ammendment because they were also subject to their tribal nation. Their US citizenship was clarified and guaranteed via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

Great point

When there's big cases coming out I watch the live chat on https://www.scotusblog.com/
They have reporters in the room typing info about the rulings as they come out. From their reporters, I usually have good understanding of the ruling before the main media gets around to putting up a breaking news banner on their site.

Members of the public can also post comments (there's a lot of moderation, they only let some comments from the public through). When the injuction ruling came out last week, one of the public comments was expressing surprise the the supreme court would strike down an injection on an executive order that is so clearly unconstitional. One of scotusblog's moderators repsonded to the comment saying he would not assume the executive order is unconstitutional, and that it would be back before the court.

I don't know what way the court will rule on it. But I do believe there's a non-zero change that it stands. The only thing that would surprise is a 9-0 ruling.

The supreme court did not strike down the injunctions in total. The injunctions only apply to those courts' districts.

"Trump's policy remains blocked in the following states:

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
In the remaining states, Trump's order can go into effect 30 days after Friday's ruling, pending any further legal action. That order limits birthright citizenship to those who are U.S. citizens or in the country with legal permanent residency, excluding those on visitor and temporary visas, as well as undocumented immigrants."

Newsweek?