"What, really, is this system for protect-

ing people’s rights if it amounts to this placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it?"

"Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057710)

This is one reason why doctrines like standing and advisory opinion exist and why the remedy should be limited to the parties. "It's all fake and political" is just a lib cope

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057874)

Let me break it down for you: when President Newsom mandates forced national ass-play hour in 2030, random conservative judges in the judiciary are going to have a harder time stopping it.

The Justices had to do something about these national injunctions, which were getting out of hand -- partly due to recent executive overreach, starting with Obama -- but this was a lurch to the other side rather than a correction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057908)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058065)

"If one rejects judicial supremacy, Jackson's opinion is hard to read (speaking as someone who genuinely likes her writing). She accepts, without defending, that "the law" is whatever one district court says it is and the executive acts in a lawless manner by acting inconsistent with that judicial determination. So it begs multiple questions throughout in speaking of the law, and disobeying the law, and what things are blatantly unconstitutional, without explaining who decides any of this.

Jackson offers two lines that are nonsensical. 1) The judicial power is especially great with respect to suits against the executive--except all constitutional litigation runs against the executive (or a non-executive officer performing an executive function). 2) Concern for "blatantly unconstitutional" laws. But constitutional invalidity is like pregnancy--you cannot have just a little bit of it. And she never explains when invalidity crosses that line into "blatancy." Ironically, she offers an example--an executive who orders incarceration of his political foes--that fails on its own procedural terms; that challenge would sound in habeas (if they seek release from custody) and not an EpY action for any sort of injunction, universal or otherwise."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057909)

interesting, though, that Dems were the ones who brought bullshit criminal charges against Trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058107)

Even the dumbest Sotomayor dissent doesn’t come close to this one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058149)

There's no more universal injunctions - instead there will just be a class action lawsuit and the injunction will apply to the entire class?

Her "opinion" is stupid but the majority opinion to me is the Supreme Court at its worst. They're holding is basically, "the court can't do this anymore" - but they don't really set forth a workable solution to the fact that presidents are passing these laws, and the Supreme Court isn't going to weigh in on if these greatly important topics are constituional or not for about 3 years.

I get that the Supreme Court doesn't want to make laws, but seems like they should fill in the gaps to this obvious problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058193)

The conservative scotus members are cowards who want to do as little as possible to avert immediate disaster and nothing more. They just want to keep kicking the can indefinitely and make the onus of power and responsibility someone else's problem

These are people tasked with the highest responsibility of leading and directing a deteriorating civilization spiraling toward civil war. If you aren't up to the task, get the fuck off the bench and give your spot to someone who is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058203)