A huge win for the administration. Beginning in 1963 Federal district courts, the lowest part of the Federal judicial system, began issuing nation wide injunctions. Their power to do so has always been dubious, and now the Supreme Court has stated that they do not have such a power in most cases. (The big issue remaining is in regard to class action suits, but I think in the future this Court will limit national injunctions in class action suits also, when the issue comes before them.) Go here to read the text of the decision.
The decision was authored by Justice Barrett and probably put paid to the notion that she is moving Left. Her slam against Justice Jackson, who is demonstrating that she is perhaps the most ignorant member of the Court in decades, is memorable:
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which
is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent,
not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this:
JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while em-
bracing an imperial Judiciary.
No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow
the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled author-
ity to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law
prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v.
Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Mad-
ison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to
follow it). But see post, at 15 (J ACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If
courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to
adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law some-
times becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observ-
ing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant
here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is re-
quired by a judge’s oath to follow the law.
JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyz-
ing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at
3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enor-
mous practical significance: May a federal court in the
United States of America order the Executive to follow the
law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider
whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what mat-
ters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive.
J USTICE J ACKSON would do well to heed her own admoni-
tion: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by
law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
Meow! Judicial cat fights are fun! No, Justice Barrett will not be forming a girl power block on the Supreme Court with the three Leftist justices any time soon.
Legal precedent has left our Constitution in the waste basket. Dred Scott is only three-quarters of a sovereign person. Justice Taney, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once leader of the Klu Klux Klan deciding that U.S. citizens could not mention our God in public, anywhere. (God is a sovereign citizen the world over, but not in the U.S.).The slaughter of innocent souls in the womb, innocent souls who are the standard of Justice for our nation. (You want corrupt Justice? There is corrupt Justice enough for all anyone could want.) After slaughtering innocent sovereign persons in the womb; the state does not grant sovereign personhood, nor life. The state recognizes sovereign personhood and gives citizenship and a tax bill.
Lawrence v. Texas; Obergefell v. Hodges is peanuts to Roe v. Wade.
Judicial, legal precedence is used to drive home evil by any other name is just as evil, the tenth ring in hell.
Have the courts read our Constitution where in “peaceable assembly” is the First Amendment?
Slaughtering innocent people in the womb is not peaceable.
“our Constitutional Posterity” are in need of Justice.
“We will not dwell on what she said..”
Boys are trained to moderate their speech even if the other guy is full of it, because at any moment things could get violent.
Girls are not.
A fellow I take note of in fora like these (a retired biochemist living in East Tennessee) is predicting that there will be widespread noncompliance by federal district judges and the administration would do well to just cite the decision and tell said judges to piss off. The judiciary has been asking for such treatment for some time.
Some progressives are now saying they will take a different approach; class action lawsuits. I’m hardly an expert in the field of class action litigation but, “on information and belief” (i.e. reading a few articles) I do think that anyone involved in a class action case has to step forward and identify themselves in order to claim protection from a subsequent court ruling. Doubtful that too many who are here illegally will take such a step, making the class action approach tenuous to say the least. IMO.
I’ve often commented (#ranted) to anyone crazy enough to listen to me that we live under a judicial oligarchy of unelected appointed for life judges who do things because “they feel like it” knowing that the only likely effect of their malfeasance is being “moved to senior status” or having their docket taken away from them. (Yes, they can be impeached but if the last few years have shown anything, it is that impeachment is not a viable remedy.) They know that it will be YEARS before they get reversed and even then, they are only back in the same position they were when it all started. And because of limited time, the appellate courts might let their malfeasance stand. In this case, this was the lawfare means for the party that LOST the election to unconstitutionally thwart the decision of the President, the only person under the Constitution elected by all Americans. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision will at least slow it down. The Supremes should institute a “rocket docket” to immediately overturn those judges that ignore this decision. And you know they will.
I personally enjoyed the fact that the majority (not just Amy Coney Barrett that wrote the opinion) decided to drop their typical judicial restraint in calling out the crazy opinion of Justice Jackson. It reminded me of that meme Youtube video of the guy that says, “You are dumb. You are really dumb.”
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
That is about as close to a verbal slap in the face as any judge ever gives. And the point is that all members of the majority put their name to it. They could have joined in the result without putting their name to the opinion. They could have written a concurring opinion but didn’t. This is a close as any judge gets to calling someone dumb.
This is not surprising considering Justice Jackson’s confirmation hearing.
Q (Blackburn): Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
Jackson, appearing confused, responded, “I’m not a biologist.”
Blackburn chided Jackson, claiming that “the fact that you can’t give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about.”
At risk of disclosing how “seasoned citizen” I am, we used to have a joke that someone got their law degree from a Cracker Jack box. Apparently Cracker Jack still gives out law degrees. Even if the Cracker Jack box is called Harvard.
Makes you wonder if they used Biden’s autopen on her nomination to the Court.
#rantoff
This decision is probably at least partly self preservation. The Court (should) know it’s enforcement goes only as far as the Executive’s willingness to enforce a decision. When the dispute is with the Executive, fair dealing becomes more essential. There is always the chance that the Executive will also stop holding up their end of the bargain in retaliation. Currently that chance is higher than usual.
Well, the ‘self-preservation’ motor did not move Sotomayor, Kagan, or Jackson. Might have influenced the Chief Justice.
I fail to share the optimism regarding the courts. Let’s see what happens.