B-Man Posted June 18 Author Posted June 18 Great news. OH NO ! Letting the people decide ? “The Court's role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of [the ban on surgically mutilating minors], but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees,” the Supreme Court ruled. “It does not. Questions regarding the law's policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.” 1
B-Man Posted June 20 Author Posted June 20 Supreme Court Deals Blow To Deep State Control In Ruling Against EPA by Breccan F. Thies The U.S. Supreme Court took a major step in helping dismantle the federal government’s stranglehold on public policy on Wednesday. In an 8-0 decision, the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could not defend itself against a lawsuit from Oklahoma and Utah in its rubber-stamp home court, the D.C. Circuit. The case arose from the EPA’s 2023 decision to deny the state implementation plans (snip) submitted by 21 states in order to comply with the 2015 “good neighbor” revision to the Clean Air Act, (snip),the thrust of the Supreme Court appeal has to do with the venue at which the case could be heard. https://thefederalist.com/2025/06/18/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-deep-state-control-in-ruling-against-epa/
B-Man Posted June 21 Author Posted June 21 "You should vote with emotion, like me" Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasts 'narrow-minded' judging on Supreme Court by Devin Dwyer Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson unloaded on her Supreme Court colleagues Friday in a series of sharp dissents, castigating what she called a "pure textualism" approach to interpreting laws, which she said had become a pretext for securing their desired outcomes, and implying the conservative justices have strayed from their oath by showing favoritism to "moneyed interests." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-ketanji-brown-jackson-blasts-narrow-minded-judging/story?id=123056694 1
B-Man Posted yesterday at 02:11 PM Author Posted yesterday at 02:11 PM ABOUT DAMN TIME. Supreme Court Allows States to Cut Off Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthood by James Lynch The Supreme Court is allowing South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, a win for pro-lifers that will clear the way for red states across the country to stop taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines Thursday to permit South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the Court, siding with the state against a private challenge brought by the abortion provider and a patient. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/supreme-court-allows-states-to-cut-off-medicaid-funding-to-planned-parenthood/ 2
Big Blitz Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM Posted yesterday at 02:29 PM JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' That goes for judges too." 1 1
B-Man Posted yesterday at 02:37 PM Author Posted yesterday at 02:37 PM In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court granted the government's applications to partially stay the district court's nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, noting that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." As we've discussed previously, the issue before the court here wasn't the merits of the executive order or birthright citizenship. Nor was the court asked to decide here whether nationwide injunctions might be appropriate in other contexts. Rather, the issue before the court was whether it is appropriate for district court judges to issue nationwide or universal injunctions in this context, although the language contained in the opinion certainly is encouraging as to the broader context. No doubt there will be further analysis to come on this one, but this is a solid win for the Trump administration. https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/06/27/supreme-court-rules-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-cases-n2190964 1
dgrochester55 Posted yesterday at 04:04 PM Posted yesterday at 04:04 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, B-Man said: In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court granted the government's applications to partially stay the district court's nationwide injunctions in the birthright citizenship cases, noting that universal injunctions "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." As we've discussed previously, the issue before the court here wasn't the merits of the executive order or birthright citizenship. Nor was the court asked to decide here whether nationwide injunctions might be appropriate in other contexts. Rather, the issue before the court was whether it is appropriate for district court judges to issue nationwide or universal injunctions in this context, although the language contained in the opinion certainly is encouraging as to the broader context. No doubt there will be further analysis to come on this one, but this is a solid win for the Trump administration. https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2025/06/27/supreme-court-rules-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-cases-n2190964 Politics aside, this ruling is logical. I am not sure how it makes sense for someone at a lower level to be able to have enough power to universally override the higher-ups ruling at will if they do not like it. We can't do that to our managers and supervisors at work and Josh Allen couldn't override Beane and McDermott on a free agent signing after it has been done. They should still have a complaint or appeal process, but now it is more balanced so that judges on either side can't use frivolous stall tactics in the name of partisan politics.. Edited yesterday at 04:06 PM by dgrochester55 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 04:21 PM Posted yesterday at 04:21 PM 6 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: What's good for the goose ... https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2018/12/18/a-look-at-the-low-key-texas-judge-who-tossed-obamacare-shows-a-history-of-notable-conservative-cases/ Both sides play the "choose a favorable district/get a national injunction" game. Democratic groups invented it; Republicans perfected it. It is a good decision in general, but the missing part is this: if individual judges can't issue nationwide injunctions, the Supreme Court is going to have to get a lot more efficient at reviewing policy changes quickly. Since we don't have that, the immediate outcome will be lawsuits on birthright citizenship in 90+ federal districts, no doubt with conflicting rulings. Born in north Texas to illegal immigrants? Not a citizen. Move west to NM? Bingo! Citizen. Unworkable.
JDHillFan Posted yesterday at 04:49 PM Posted yesterday at 04:49 PM Tough day for many but as Roundy has said ad nauseam, unfortunately, “follow scotus”. 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted yesterday at 05:00 PM Posted yesterday at 05:00 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: @The Frankish Reich this seems logical to me, but I'm just a regular guy making his way through life. What say you? ***oops, I see Francisish already opined. Ty, Frank! My summary of Frank's summary...the government for all it's moving parts and all the money coming in is still woefully inadequate at being efficient. Edited yesterday at 05:07 PM by leh-nerd skin-erd 1
JFKjr Posted yesterday at 05:07 PM Posted yesterday at 05:07 PM 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Does Autopen know if it appointed a WOMAN? 2
The Frankish Reich Posted yesterday at 05:12 PM Posted yesterday at 05:12 PM 9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: @The Frankish Reich this seems logical to me, but I'm just a regular guy making his way through life. What say you? ***oops, I see Francisish already opined. Ty, Frank! My summary of Frank's summary...the government for all it's moving parts and all the money coming in is still woefully inadequate at being efficient. Birthright citizenship is not an issue that requires a trial in a lower court. That's for what lawyers call a "contested issue of fact." There is no contested issue of fact. You were born in the USA of two illegal aliens. Are you a citizen under the 15th Amendment, or are you not a citizen under Trump's EO? We call that a "pure issue of law." The Supreme Court could've decided it on the merits right now. Instead they said "no national injunctions," which is fair (to me) but is also an invitation to chaos. 24 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: Tough day for many but as Roundy has said ad nauseam, unfortunately, “follow scotus”. Well, yes. But unfortunately this is a case that proves a different political point, namely that Supreme Court Justices live in their academic ivory towers and are oblivious (or intentionally ignore) the practical effects of their decisions. Just decide the damn issue, not the procedural aspects. Are kids born in the USA to illegal aliens after the effective date of the EO citizens or not? Can you get a passport for the kid? What if the kid is born to lawful foreign grad students? The kid gets a passport if he lives in California but not if he lives in Texas? You move to California to magically make the kid a citizen? Justices need to live in the real world. The Supreme Court should seek to bring order and stability, not to encourage chaos.
Big Blitz Posted yesterday at 05:18 PM Posted yesterday at 05:18 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, JDHillFan said: Tough day for many but as Roundy has said ad nauseam, unfortunately, “follow scotus”. My God. “Legal analyst.” Liberal activist. Take a wild guess who the 3 autocrats are Edited yesterday at 06:12 PM by Big Blitz 1 1
Recommended Posts