https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/ supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-decision/
. . .
Several relevant rulings today :
Federal judges no longer have nationwide authority
to block executive initiatives ... can't go judge
shopping in Seattle anymore. At best federal judges
have authority in just their particular area of
jurisdiction.
Parental rights - parents CAN opt out for 'religious'
reasons in having their kiddies indoctrinated by
letter-people propaganda material in the public
schools.
Birthright - this does NOT settle it, but FOR NOW
gives the executive the right to limit how that
right is applied. IMHO, in the end, 'birthright'
IS woven into the constitution. However it has
also been seriously abused of late. Do not think
presidents can arbitrarily un-do parts of the
constitution however. That can go WAY bad WAY
quick. As such I do not agree with today's ruling.
Trump is giving a presser right now about these
rulings.
On 6/27/2025 10:05 AM, c186282 wrote:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/
supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-decision/
. . .
Several relevant rulings today :
Federal judges no longer have nationwide authority
to block executive initiatives ... can't go judge
shopping in Seattle anymore. At best federal judges
have authority in just their particular area of
jurisdiction.
Parental rights - parents CAN opt out for 'religious'
reasons in having their kiddies indoctrinated by
letter-people propaganda material in the public
schools.
Birthright - this does NOT settle it, but FOR NOW
gives the executive the right to limit how that
right is applied. IMHO, in the end, 'birthright'
IS woven into the constitution. However it has
also been seriously abused of late. Do not think
presidents can arbitrarily un-do parts of the
constitution however. That can go WAY bad WAY
quick. As such I do not agree with today's ruling.
Trump is giving a presser right now about these
rulings.
Here's some interesting analysis of the court's decision:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/whoa-amy-coney-barrett-nukes-ketanji-brown-jackson/
Justice Amy Coney Barrett confirmed how little she thinks of her far
less intelligent colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during today’s historic ruling on nationwide injunctions with a phrase that will haunt
Biden appointee for years.
As TGP’s Jim Hoft reported, the United States Supreme Court delivered a powerful rebuke of activist judges and handed President Trump a pivotal
legal victory on Friday.
The decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., reaffirms the rightful balance of
power between the judiciary and the executive, curbing the ability of unelected district judges to paralyze the will of a duly elected
president. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district
courts lack the constitutional or statutory authority to issue so-called ‘universal injunctions’ — sweeping orders that block government policies
nationwide, often at the request of left-wing advocacy groups.
The case stemmed from challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s
Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (90 Fed. Reg. 8449, 2025).
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, dismantled the
legal foundation of these injunctions with surgical precision. Joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and
Kavanaugh, Barrett declared that such “universal” remedies lack any historical basis in the equitable traditions of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.
It was stunning enough that Barrett authored this ruling, but what
Barrett said about Jackson is even more shocking.
In her ruling, Barrett went off on Jackson for her ridiculous argument against nationwide injunctions.
“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,” she began. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,”
she added.
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
This was certainly rough. But Barrett was not finished with Jackson and dropped the most brutal line of all.
” Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring legalese. “
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
Essentially, Barrett is saying Jackson is too dumb to understand basic Constitutional law, vindicating conservatives who claim she was a DEI appointment. Ouch.
If the mild-mannered Barrett thinks this of her colleague, can you
imagine what Justices Alito and Thomas believe when Jackson opens her
mouth?
On 6/27/25 12:27 PM, Doctor Fill wrote:
On 6/27/2025 10:05 AM, c186282 wrote:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/
supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-decision/
. . .
Several relevant rulings today :
Federal judges no longer have nationwide authority
to block executive initiatives ... can't go judge
shopping in Seattle anymore. At best federal judges
have authority in just their particular area of
jurisdiction.
Parental rights - parents CAN opt out for 'religious'
reasons in having their kiddies indoctrinated by
letter-people propaganda material in the public
schools.
Birthright - this does NOT settle it, but FOR NOW
gives the executive the right to limit how that
right is applied. IMHO, in the end, 'birthright'
IS woven into the constitution. However it has
also been seriously abused of late. Do not think
presidents can arbitrarily un-do parts of the
constitution however. That can go WAY bad WAY
quick. As such I do not agree with today's ruling.
Trump is giving a presser right now about these
rulings.
Here's some interesting analysis of the court's decision:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/whoa-amy-coney-barrett-nukes-
ketanji-brown-jackson/
Justice Amy Coney Barrett confirmed how little she thinks of her far
less intelligent colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during
today’s historic ruling on nationwide injunctions with a phrase that
will haunt Biden appointee for years.
As TGP’s Jim Hoft reported, the United States Supreme Court delivered
a powerful rebuke of activist judges and handed President Trump a
pivotal legal victory on Friday.
The decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., reaffirms the rightful balance of
power between the judiciary and the executive, curbing the ability of
unelected district judges to paralyze the will of a duly elected
president. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district
courts lack the constitutional or statutory authority to issue so-
called ‘universal injunctions’ — sweeping orders that block government >> policies nationwide, often at the request of left-wing advocacy groups.
The case stemmed from challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s
Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of
American Citizenship (90 Fed. Reg. 8449, 2025).
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, dismantled the
legal foundation of these injunctions with surgical precision. Joined
by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and
Kavanaugh, Barrett declared that such “universal” remedies lack any
historical basis in the equitable traditions of the Judiciary Act of
1789.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.
It was stunning enough that Barrett authored this ruling, but what
Barrett said about Jackson is even more shocking.
In her ruling, Barrett went off on Jackson for her ridiculous argument
against nationwide injunctions.
“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,” she began. “We observe only this: Justice
Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial
judiciary,” she added.
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
This was certainly rough. But Barrett was not finished with Jackson
and dropped the most brutal line of all.
” Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the
governing statute involves boring legalese. “
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
Essentially, Barrett is saying Jackson is too dumb to understand basic
Constitutional law, vindicating conservatives who claim she was a DEI
appointment. Ouch.
If the mild-mannered Barrett thinks this of her colleague, can you
imagine what Justices Alito and Thomas believe when Jackson opens her
mouth?
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial
executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,”
That's an IMPORTANT sentence.
However we cannot have either an imperial Executive or
an imperial Judiciary ... the whole plan behind the
constitution was to divvy-up authority enough so that
no branch of govt can 'rule'. Otherwise we get our
very own Putins and Ayatollahs and Kims.
If they want to get rid of 'birthright' they'll have to
amend the constitution. Frankly, in the existing climate,
I don't want ANY politicians messing with the constitution.
The better way to beat 'birthright' abuse is better border
enforcement.
And now that some hippie-dippy judge in Cal cannot block
immigration enforcement nationwide ....
On 6/27/2025 11:03 AM, c186282 wrote:
On 6/27/25 12:27 PM, Doctor Fill wrote:
On 6/27/2025 10:05 AM, c186282 wrote:
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/immigration/border-coverage/
supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-decision/
. . .
Several relevant rulings today :
Federal judges no longer have nationwide authority
to block executive initiatives ... can't go judge
shopping in Seattle anymore. At best federal judges
have authority in just their particular area of
jurisdiction.
Parental rights - parents CAN opt out for 'religious'
reasons in having their kiddies indoctrinated by
letter-people propaganda material in the public
schools.
Birthright - this does NOT settle it, but FOR NOW
gives the executive the right to limit how that
right is applied. IMHO, in the end, 'birthright'
IS woven into the constitution. However it has
also been seriously abused of late. Do not think
presidents can arbitrarily un-do parts of the
constitution however. That can go WAY bad WAY
quick. As such I do not agree with today's ruling.
Trump is giving a presser right now about these
rulings.
Here's some interesting analysis of the court's decision:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/whoa-amy-coney-barrett-nukes- ketanji-brown-jackson/
Justice Amy Coney Barrett confirmed how little she thinks of her far
less intelligent colleague Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson during
today’s historic ruling on nationwide injunctions with a phrase that
will haunt Biden appointee for years.
As TGP’s Jim Hoft reported, the United States Supreme Court delivered
a powerful rebuke of activist judges and handed President Trump a
pivotal legal victory on Friday.
The decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., reaffirms the rightful balance
of power between the judiciary and the executive, curbing the ability
of unelected district judges to paralyze the will of a duly elected
president. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that federal district
courts lack the constitutional or statutory authority to issue so-
called ‘universal injunctions’ — sweeping orders that block
government policies nationwide, often at the request of left-wing
advocacy groups.
The case stemmed from challenges to President Donald J. Trump’s
Executive Order No. 14160, titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of
American Citizenship (90 Fed. Reg. 8449, 2025).
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, dismantled the
legal foundation of these injunctions with surgical precision. Joined
by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and
Kavanaugh, Barrett declared that such “universal” remedies lack any
historical basis in the equitable traditions of the Judiciary Act of
1789.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.
It was stunning enough that Barrett authored this ruling, but what
Barrett said about Jackson is even more shocking.
In her ruling, Barrett went off on Jackson for her ridiculous
argument against nationwide injunctions.
“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,” she began. “We observe only this: Justice
Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial
judiciary,” she added.
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
This was certainly rough. But Barrett was not finished with Jackson
and dropped the most brutal line of all.
” Justice Jackson skips over that part. Because analyzing the
governing statute involves boring legalese. “
Credit: U.S. Supreme Court
Essentially, Barrett is saying Jackson is too dumb to understand
basic Constitutional law, vindicating conservatives who claim she was
a DEI appointment. Ouch.
If the mild-mannered Barrett thinks this of her colleague, can you
imagine what Justices Alito and Thomas believe when Jackson opens her
mouth?
“We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial
executive while embracing an imperial judiciary,”
That's an IMPORTANT sentence.
However we cannot have either an imperial Executive or
an imperial Judiciary ... the whole plan behind the
constitution was to divvy-up authority enough so that
no branch of govt can 'rule'. Otherwise we get our
very own Putins and Ayatollahs and Kims.
If they want to get rid of 'birthright' they'll have to
amend the constitution. Frankly, in the existing climate,
I don't want ANY politicians messing with the constitution.
The better way to beat 'birthright' abuse is better border
enforcement.
True. I agree with you that opening up a Constitutional Convention to
change the wording of the Tenth Amendment is too dangerous, given the neo-Bolsheviks in the Democrat Party who would change the Constitution
beyond all recognition in a fit of wokeness and anti-White hatred. I do believe, however, that the Supreme Court could re-interpret lower court interpretations of birthright citizenship so as to exclude babies born
to invaders / illegal aliens from American citizen status. Their
exclusion of anchor babies and babies born due to birth tourism from
(mainly China) from citizenship is long overdue. Nothing good comes from demographic replacement meant to turn the United States into a Third
World shit hole.
And now that some hippie-dippy judge in Cal cannot block
immigration enforcement nationwide ....
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 135:25:14 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,366 |