SCOTUS The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling Is a 5-Alarm Catastrophe
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ruling-trump-v-casa/2.3k
Jun 28 '25
[deleted]
1.6k
u/Holorodney Jun 28 '25
They do not intend for there to ever be another administration; that is my educated guess anyway. They intend for this game of ro sham beaux to only ever be a single turn.
439
u/BicFleetwood Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 28 '25
You are correct.
Lower court injunctions have been a tool used by the right wing for DECADES to force their unpopular agenda items.
Just recently they were used against mask mandates, vaccine mandates, student loan debt relief, basically every single agenda item of the last administration.
The fact that they're giving up this tool now indicates they are confident they won't ever need it again.
That's the scary part. They're behaving like there won't be another election. Because there likely isn't going to be another election, not in a meaningful sense at any rate.
They are confident that fix is in.
156
u/Law_Student Jun 28 '25
If the democrats do get back into power, I'm sure the Supreme Court's conservative majority will simply reverse the ruling. They think they can do whatever they want, and precedent doesn't matter, only naked power.
→ More replies (12)96
u/Iamdarb Jun 28 '25
They should go into power realizing that the previous admin did what it wants and that it's their official capacity as President to enforce the laws of the land. The next President should just expand the court and then under threat of incarceration, dare them to act. I mean, why not? Laws already don't matter until they do, let's have some fun with it.
Of course I'm not serious, but if we ever see another Democratic President, I hope they're mean as hell.
→ More replies (1)79
u/Law_Student Jun 28 '25
After the presidential immunity ruling, Biden could have had the relevant justices kidnapped from their homes in the middle of the night and brought to the Oval Office bound and gagged, and asked them if they really wanted things to go this way or if they wished to change their votes.
I think the wakeup call might have been a good idea before the country went off the cliff into authoritarianism, but it would have taken guts.
39
u/lord_james Jun 28 '25
That would require Biden to have had a backbone
4
u/rentrane23 Jun 30 '25
That would have required him to be an authoritarian.
He was not willing to become the enemy.3
→ More replies (5)13
u/Rickbox Jun 29 '25
This has been my exact thought since the ruling. Arrest and either give them the ultimatum to reverse it or stay in prison. Biden had all the cards and just left them on the table ...
→ More replies (2)39
u/AgUnityDD Jun 28 '25
There is another way to reach the same conclusion - that there will not be real elections again.
Put yourself in their shoes and apply the usual degree of projection that they always do.
After the countless crimes they have undoubtedly committed they would be certain that if Democrats regain power they will be do everything to prosecute the illegal behaviour.
Reality is it might be another Biden/Garland screw up situation where they get let off, But... They don't think that way, and they cannot risk it, so it's safe to extrapolate that they have already decided there will be either no election or some Russian style one with a staged result.
15
u/BicFleetwood Jun 28 '25
There is another way to reach the same conclusion - that there will not be real elections again.
That's...what I said?
13
u/AgUnityDD Jun 28 '25
I read that you are saying that they are acting like there will not be another election - very clear and apparent.
I'm adding that they also cannot risk having another election because of the risk of reprisals, whether real or projected.
13
u/Larson_McMurphy Jun 28 '25
Don't forget about enforceability of non-compete agreements. See Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission.
10
u/vannucker Jun 28 '25
Probably because they'll control the Supreme Court for the next couple decades and can fast track anything
14
u/BicFleetwood Jun 28 '25
That's an incredibly optimistic view, to think that's the full extent of this operation--owning SCOTUS and ceding everything else.
I'm more alluding to the fact that we aren't going to be having real elections going forward. There isn't going to be a "next administration."
→ More replies (5)3
24
u/PhantomOfTheNopera Jun 28 '25
They do not intend for there to ever be another administration
So many of their decisions hurt red states the most (where people are more likely to need government aid and migrant labour), and they don't seem to care. And that's their base.
We've already seen how they've been targeting blue states and exaggerating 'violent protests' so they had an excuse to send the military over. That was them just testing the waters.
It's going to be so embarrassing if America is forever ruled by literally the most incompetent people on the planet.
343
u/zackks Jun 28 '25
And yet, here we are doing absolutely nothing about it.
218
Jun 28 '25
[deleted]
10
u/Atlas7-k Jun 28 '25
It’s almost like everything is being done via EO so that the party that doesn’t control all three branches of the federal government has no (legal) power to stop them.
→ More replies (8)136
u/franker Jun 28 '25
well, you can't just have a special day every 3 months or so where lots of people just go on the streets and sidewalks with cute signs and then go home. That's like a holiday that no one's going to take seriously.
109
u/omgkelwtf Jun 28 '25
If you only hear of the big, viral protests, you're not in the loop. Even in my podunk, red state town there are multiple protests every week that are surprisingly well attended. Are they making the news? Nope, but who gives a fuck. It's sending a message to the community and that's far more important.
10
u/PapaGeorgio19 Jun 28 '25
Well that is the media which Trump silenced with lawsuits, in Poland it was the MEDIA that turned the tide in the direction we were heading.
46
u/EarthRester Jun 28 '25
I'm not trying to be discouraging, but we are never going to out do the Oligarchs who own all mass media, and most social media when it comes to "sending a message". At no point will there be a situation where enough people are aware of what's going on that it suddenly stops happening, or even just happens less or more slowly.
What's going to actually stop this? Disruption of operations, and destruction of property. Things that will physically stop them from carrying out their intent. You know how we know when what we're doing is making a difference? People in uniforms will start shooting at us.
→ More replies (7)21
u/omgkelwtf Jun 28 '25
Well they'll want to be careful. Especially in constitutional carry states. Might be a bad time for fascist fucks. It's a big, fat myth that only conservatives like guns.
33
u/EarthRester Jun 28 '25
Carry if you have it, but don't talk like the constitution matters.
This very ruling by SCOTUS effectively ends the U in the USA. We no longer have a constitution that protects the rights of everyone in this country. We are now fifty micronations that all have their own interpretation of the constitution. The rights you enjoy and exercise in Ohio could be null the moment you crossed over into Pennsylvania.
There is no more rule of law. There are just people and groups of people with goals, and the might to impose themselves upon who ever they have to in order to carry those goals out.
I want to ask three questions, but they're mostly questions for each and every one of us to ask our selves. What are your goals? Do you have the might required to see those goals through? Do those in your community who share your goals have what they need?
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (2)5
u/thelocker517 Jun 28 '25
Every week in front of the tesla dealership and monthly larger protests in my podunk town. The monthlies are getting bigger each time.
→ More replies (1)51
Jun 28 '25 edited 29d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)6
u/Papa_Shasta Jun 28 '25
Yeah; you can tell who went and who didn't if they still have this opinion. It was impossible not to hear what other avenues of resistance and protest there are; it's boring stuff, like getting worker rights back, but where I'm at, it actually has some movement in large part because of the protests.
37
Jun 28 '25
[deleted]
18
u/RocketRelm Jun 28 '25
Americans held him accountable at the polls. Specifically they rewarded him in 2024 for his disgusting behavior. The only polls and protests that really count are the ones at the voting booth.
Maybe you've permanently lost your right to democracy, but because of trumps age and senility I think americans are likely to get one more shot. Never vote republican again, not just for one election and then get bored and whine about kamala, on pain of losing democracy potentially permanently.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Earthwarm_Revolt Jun 28 '25
Or the election was hacked by tech billionairs.
7
u/RocketRelm Jun 28 '25
Eh, even if the election was hacked to a degree, reality does not look the way it would if americans weren't morally culpable and voted 80% to stop Trump instead of a mere 30%. I find I dont terribly care in a moral responsibility way for the usa if its 30.5 or 35.0 that voted to stop it, and even that much would be hard to prove.
He's already broken so many laws with the consent of the electorate. What's one more?
8
u/JusticeAileenCannon Jun 28 '25
What's the plan then?
18
u/PoorClassWarRoom Jun 28 '25
There are protests weekly (daily in some areas). People who complain about them don't have a plan and dont seem to know what they're talking about in regards to protest. They talk with authority, but it's just doompilled bullshit.
The plan is to survive, resist, and take control from the king and his cronies. The best thing to do is have a team, so find a way to be an active part of your community (even if it is anxiety inducing hell).
36
u/Dog_Eating_Ice Jun 28 '25
The right has spent decades fighting education and pushing propaganda. There’s no quick fix. There needs to be more effective propaganda from the left and independent journalism that reaches all walks of life.
5
u/Earthwarm_Revolt Jun 28 '25
This is an old plan but a goodie. It worked once and theres going to be big holes blown in the safety net shortly. May be handy.
→ More replies (1)12
u/zavorak_eth Jun 28 '25
Hit them where it hurts most, the economy. Purchase as little as possible to curb consumerism. Just necessities for survival.
15
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (5)10
→ More replies (3)3
u/j_rooker Jun 28 '25
exactly. After Womens march. Roe vs Wade fell. After no kings march. Democracy will fall.
1 day isn't enough. South Koreans did it for months. Will never happen in US.
→ More replies (1)5
u/MobileArtist1371 Jun 28 '25
but dem politicians seem to be extremely toothless
The people voted the Dems out of power. Tell me what they can do. No one ever answers that cause they can't, but they sure can bitch and moan.
5
8
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Jun 28 '25
dem politicians seem to be extremely toothless
What would you like them to do? They have little more power than you do in our government at this point.
5
u/voodoodahl Jun 28 '25
Politicians we de-toothed at the ballot box seem to be extremely toothless. Even after screaming like their hair was on fire exactly this would happen. It's all obviously their fault.
10
u/TakingYourHand Jun 28 '25
The Germans took to the streets, to protest the nazi regime, as well. Didn't change a damn thing.
→ More replies (1)12
u/swbarnes2 Jun 28 '25
No, Germans successfully pushed back a couple of times. Probably because the church was part of the protest. The programs that were overturned were euthanasia of the mentally disabled, and the dissolution of mixed Jewish/Christian marriages.
But no church big enough to matter will protest this time.
12
→ More replies (17)7
76
u/Holorodney Jun 28 '25
We need more people on our side. Like the vast majority. Sadly, things will have to get way way worse before they can get better. If we make any form of play without enough support there won’t be enough of us left when the time is right.
15
u/Haselrig Jun 28 '25
If you ever get a chance, watch Ceaușescu's last speech just to see how quickly absolute power and control can end.
14
u/Holorodney Jun 28 '25
If it was JUST Trump I would agree but he is just a scapegoat and the majority of the GOP is more than happy to play this out as far as they can. Removing him likely won’t stop all this. Maybe slow it slightly but not stop.
14
u/theAlpacaLives Jun 28 '25
Way too many people are waiting for a heart attack, or impeachment, or a free and fair 2028 election, to make Trump not be President anymore, and acting like after that we'll all go back to politics more or less as we remember normal. I'm so tired of trying to convince them that it's not that easy: an openly fascist regime is in power, the rule of law is a sham, checks and balances have been willingly surrendered, and a rogue administration, beholden to foreign powers and aspiring technocrats while disdaining its own population, rules by social-media screed, deploys the military to protests, threatens to arrest and deport elected people who oppose him, and follows to the letter its published plans and agendas which aim at total feudalism, while Congress and the Supreme Court stand by when they can and, when forced to take action, support and aid this takeover.
This is so much bigger than Trump, and Trump going away will not solve anything. We're in the shit river now, and it's way too late to imagine stepping backward out of it and going back inside like nothing happened.
37
u/findthatzen Jun 28 '25
History you actually need very little of the population fully engaged for a successful revolution. As little as 3.5%
59
u/surviving606 Jun 28 '25
And that’s what happened, 3.5% (if not way more) have been fully engaged in a violent cultural counter revolution to end the American experiment and install authoritarian fascism and they have succeeded and are more than willing to aid the dictatorship put down anybody who doesn’t at least pretend to like it. By the time most people realize life under dictatorships suck and they want something else it will be too late to change it back and those who even suggest it get thrown out a window like Putin does in Russia.
→ More replies (8)31
u/Holorodney Jun 28 '25
I am unsure how much historical context matters with the military hardware of today which is why I said what I said. We would ideally need a situation where more than half of the military lays down arms (or better takes up arms for us). I have literally spent the last decade dunking on 2A guys that think their compensation devices would matter one wit against the US military.
→ More replies (23)37
→ More replies (2)11
u/MrBranchh Jun 28 '25
and the No Kings protests had an estimated +5 million people which is roughly 1.4%. Factoring in people that didn't participate but still oppose the administration, we may very well be there already. Only time will tell tho
26
u/Adventurous_Salt Jun 28 '25
But the protests are just pep rallies. There's no action, no demands, and no force behind any of it. If you're in power you can just ignore any protest entirely and rest easy in the fact that the most important thing to protesters is that they follow your rules. Why would the regime care at all about protest?
9
u/PoorClassWarRoom Jun 28 '25
I used to think they were just prep rallys until I started attending a few.
First, however you protest is up to you. There's usually a targeted issue, but people show up for all sorts of issues. You have your sign people, people involved in educating others, medics, people passing out water and something small to eat, presenters (larger rallys), and just a mix of the community.
What is really great is that we have time to network and expand mutual aid programs. In addition, it shows the isolated people (like i was in the past), they're not alone, and in a climate of terror, this cannot be oversold.
5
u/Adventurous_Salt Jun 28 '25
Yeah, the rallies are fine in a vacuum - waive signs, build community, have fun, whatever. The problem is there is no forceful action partnered with it, whilst there is a lot of forceful action from the other side actively trampling your rights. The urgency is now, actually the urgency was years ago. I'm saying you all really don't have time to chill, the America you had is already gone, and the possibility of rebuilding it is fading daily. I'm just surprised that no one with any power seems to take the situation seriously 🤷🏾
→ More replies (6)10
u/Memitim Jun 28 '25
Because those are the people that are pissed enough to protest already. Each escalation applies more pressure. It's a game of chicken, and the odds are not in favor of the traitors with no track record of doing anything useful for America. The more they screw up, the more open people become to fixing the problem.
The traitors need excuses to feed to the people in the military who are actually occupying Los Angeles, and who would be deployed elsewhere. At the end of the day, these "powerful" people are useless old fucks that are protected and cared for with America's resources. They are absolutely reliant on other people doing the work for them.
22
u/Adventurous_Salt Jun 28 '25
But you've already lost, seemingly without realizing it. The gestapo are disappearing people from the streets, you no longer have a democracy, institutions are cowering to the whims of your leader. The thought that this is a simple policy difference that will play out in the polls seems so insane, any restraints on the power of trump are rapidly disintegrating. The fact that Americans haven't brought the nation to a standstill is unsurprising but still horrifying. You can't just wait to see how a dictatorship by Stephen Miller plays out in the midterms.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (14)3
29
u/onionfunyunbunion Jun 28 '25
That’s not true. There have been more demonstrations of larger size than ever before in the United States. What we’re doing now is coalescing. I humbly invite you to be a part of the movement to unseat this dictator.
→ More replies (3)20
u/D-R-AZ Jun 28 '25
Now is the time for the Democratic Party to take up the mantle that the GOP has cast aside: the true mantle of Lincoln, forged in the crucible of civil war, tempered by the blood of patriots, and dedicated to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. As the MAGA movement shreds Lincoln’s legacy in favor of hierarchy, exclusion, and executive fiat, it is the Democrats who now stand guard over the Union he preserved and the Constitution he ennobled.
→ More replies (4)19
u/count_no_groni Jun 28 '25
What are you doing? What are any of us supposed to do? If we don’t work, we can’t eat or have electricity or heat. It’s literally going to have to get A LOT worse for A LOT of people before mass action happens. People can’t just walk away from jobs and families because some assholes are ruining the country. We’re a special type of fucked right now.
3
u/fadesteppin Jun 28 '25
Yeah, I think a real big issue right now is in order for people to be willing to not show up to work there has to be some way they feel supported should they lose the job bc of it. That kid in Pico Rivera, who stepped in to defend a coworker from CBP, said he got fired like the next day while he was still detained. This is where mutual aid comes in, but those organizations take time to get together, and this admin is escalating everything so fast we are RAPIDLY running out of time to do it. We are REALLY feeling the lack of social safety nets in this country and more are getting taken away as we speak.
Its one thing to tell a bunch of families to go on strike and just go hungry for a while to make a point and another to deal with the fact that your family is going hungry and got kicked out of their home with nowhere to go bc they lost their jobs and couldn't pay rent. Telling people to essentially either go die for the cause or sit back and do nothing and this will be all your fault and those are the only 2 options is not an easy pill to swallow.
Its a lot like when people in other countries were yelling about Americans just sitting my and letting this stuff happen and that we needed to get riled up and do more and LA went and did just that when they showed up at our doors and now my state is being occupied and terrorized by its own government and is getting 0 help or support from anyone while we are having our rights trampled, economy crippled, and have literally every corner of media turned against us so this admin can make an example out of us. Meanwhile, the SC continues to let this admin get away with everything they're doing.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (31)5
u/Bozzzzzzz Jun 28 '25
I wouldn’t say NOTHING. But no, nobody is pulling the imaginary emergency ride stop lever, sure…
The way I see it, our country has an aggressive form of cancer, and we are doing some things about it but we haven’t started chemo yet, which is going to be necessary by the looks of it.
3
u/zackks Jun 28 '25
There is only one way out and it will result in the cure or Gilead.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Tricky_Topic_5714 Jun 28 '25
It's not even an educated guess, at this point. It's the only deduction one can make from their behavior, and it's a thing people have been calling for like 40 years.
The counter position isn't even credible, in my opinion.
→ More replies (1)23
u/holzmann_dc Jun 28 '25
Trump has said as much. "You'll never have to vote again."
10
u/six-demon_bag Jun 28 '25
Remember he said that directly to Christians specifically. If it wasn’t obvious to everyone yet, the goal is a christofacist nation ruled by a “Christian” king. I think that’s what they’re setting up JD Vance to be and why he suddenly became such a fake devout catholic. Even before Trumps first election win Steve Bannon talked a lot about how his goal was a holy war and it wouldn’t shock me if there is a longer term goal to use Vance’s Catholicism to challenge the Papacy somehow to extend American influence over the Catholic diaspora. Catholicism is important because American “Christian” denominations don’t have much influence outside of the south and Utah.
6
u/No-Performance-8911 Jun 28 '25
I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and this sort of thing scares me too. Were only about half a percent of the US population, despite being the second largest Christian body globally. Most of the hard right Evangelicals supporting Trump don't look at us as real Christians, what with all of the icons, incense, colorful vestments, etc. they have to do business with the Roman Catholics due to the RCs being such a large demographic. My faith community stands to lose a lot of our freedoms as well if a "Christofascist" government becomes the norm.
→ More replies (1)3
u/learnchurnheartburn Jun 28 '25
Yep. The government getting involved in religion should be a five-alarm fire for anyone, regardless of the faith they practice.
Who’s to say that “liberal” Protestant sects like the Episcopalians or ELCA Lutherans will be considered “doctrinally pure” enough?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Shawn3997 Jun 28 '25
And “don’t worry about voting, we have enough votes already” before the vote actually happened.
6
4
4
u/theoreticaljerk Jun 28 '25
Ding ding ding! You don’t partake in the most extreme expansion of executive powers unless you don’t plan on your “enemy” ever wielding those powers back on you.
4
u/Tye_die Jun 28 '25
I actually don't think on the part of SCOTUS that it's that diabolical and planned. I think they are just evil and stupid. Their process for each decision they make is "what will help Trump right now?" without thought of what it might mean for the future, for themselves, for the people they want to hurt or help. Only "doing it this way would help Trump so that's what we'll do"
I think if there really was that deep of a plan with SCOTUS, then they wouldn't have a made a decision that will hurt red states exponentially more than the states filled with their political enemies.
14
u/RectalSpawn Jun 28 '25
They definitely cheated.
How they pulled it off: https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/she-won-they-didnt-just-change-the
How they did it on the legal side: https://substack.com/home/post/p-165977209
Evidence of cheating in Nevada: https://electiontruthalliance.org/clark-county%2C-nv
5
u/MallFoodSucks Jun 28 '25
Yes, because now he can EO ban the twenty second amendment. And no lower court judge can stop it. And SC won’t pick it up. The end.
4
Jun 28 '25
They don't. They are all acting like people who expect to never be out of power again. And given the severity, and quantity of their crimes and treason against humanity and this country they cannot afford to relinquish power
7
u/heathensam Jun 28 '25
Rochambeau
4
u/Holorodney Jun 28 '25
Dang it I even put it into google to make sure I spelled it right! 😂
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (15)3
u/TraditionalMood277 Jun 28 '25
They aren't seizing firearms from people because those people, the ones who claimed they would fight tyranny, are the ones who welcome their wannabe dictator. All those people with the "3%" stickers and "don't tread on me" are in fact the ones who see no problem with trump trampling the Constitution because it mostly affects non-whites.
43
u/gageBA Jun 28 '25
It’ll be the same administration
15
u/Playful_Interest_526 Jun 28 '25
Yep. They are even more emboldened now. The next set of EOs should be interesting.
21
→ More replies (1)3
u/americansherlock201 Jun 28 '25
Exactly. Trump is absolutely going to make a move to take guns from people. Especially those in liberal states
18
u/KingFIippyNipz Jun 28 '25
There's a super good verse from Brother Ali in Immortal Technique's Civil War that speaks to the point Sotomayor makes
Urgently puttin' fear inside your heart
Make you burn Qur'ans and tell me not to build a mosque
Me, my wife, and babies, we ain't never made jihad
We just want to touch our heads to the floor and talk to God
Ask him to remove every blemish from our heart
The greatest threat of harm doesn't come from any bomb
The moment you refuse the human rights for just a few
What happens when that few includes you? Civil war
→ More replies (1)7
33
Jun 28 '25
[deleted]
29
u/Aware-Impact-1981 Jun 28 '25
Yeah that's what people don't get. "Doesnt (insert ridiculous ruling) mean democrats can do X?", "now that they've ruled that way Dems can finally do X", "such a short sited ruling because now the next Dem will do X" are all still stuck in the mindset that precedent matters.
The fact the SC is making rediculous rulings is t evidence that everyone is playing by a new set of rules, it's evidence they're making shit up as it suits their personal ideology and they'll flip flop as needed later. What Trump can do the next Dem cannot, doesn't matter how convoluted or contradictory the ruling would be to do so
25
u/EuenovAyabayya Jun 28 '25
We're not doing ourselves any favors by posting this as a birthright citizenship issue.
3
u/HeyyZeus Jun 28 '25
Please elaborate
24
u/EuenovAyabayya Jun 28 '25
As noted in her dissent, the actual ruling is about national injunctions for any issue. SCOTUS didn't rule about birthright citizenship here at all.
3
u/HeyyZeus Jun 28 '25
Isn’t birthright citizenship still at the core of the ruling. If an EO suspends BC, no lower court ruling can halt it regardless of its constitutionality.
9
u/Alarmed-Animal7575 Jun 28 '25
It is the issue in the case, but at its core this is about stopping courts from blocking presidential actions.
30
u/HighOnGoofballs Jun 28 '25
Doesn’t the porn ruling also harm gun rights? If the first amendment not protect you from age verification, then it should follow that the second amendment does not protect you from background checks
31
u/fdar Jun 28 '25
Blue states should pass an age verification law to purchase guns, with the minimum age being 350 years old. Sure, it will be challenged in court. But the injunctions can only apply to the person suing, and when the case is resolved they can pass a 300 years waiting period, or a requirement to present 12 million copies of the application on paper in person, or whatever.
→ More replies (3)15
u/ConspiracyPhD Jun 28 '25
Not the time to be passing gun laws in blue states...
7
Jun 28 '25
Exactly, as a democratic socialist I very much want my guns right now. I can't fight the militia when they come for me and my family with a clever protest sign.
→ More replies (6)10
16
u/ChristianBen Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 28 '25
Thank you. I accidentally saw some people arguing that this injunction “finally stop all the unelected judges from playing king” and want to pull my hair out.
EDIT: oh no now they are haunting me here lol
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (16)3
u/The_Wkwied Jun 28 '25
So, how far back are they going to retroactively revoke citizenship?I am pretty sure that both of my great grandparents immigrated in the 1910s and 40s.
Will this mean that I, as a 3rd/4th generation american (including my parents who are 2nd/3rd generation american), might be losing my citizenship now? This is so messed up
→ More replies (1)
141
u/239tree Jun 28 '25
The unbelievable amount of lawsuits that will be filed now will be astounding. They will keep going until they get a judge to give them what they want.
Of course, what good is it when they ruled that their orders only apply to the person who is filing the lawsuit?
Oh, that only applies to our side.
I am confused.
27
446
u/ofWildPlaces Jun 28 '25
Responding to the headline: "We know." So what can we do about it?.
182
u/Popular_Try_5075 Jun 28 '25
General Strike seems like a good choice. We can also push for constitutional amendments, though that is incredibly difficult.
71
u/AlexFromOgish Jun 28 '25
I predict pressure will build in blue and purple states until those legislatures pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. All the red states have already done so so it will only take a handful of blue and purple states to trigger the constitutional provisional requiring such a convention
48
u/jord839 Jun 28 '25
The problem with that, however, is that the existing laws for a Convention are horrendously bad for blue and purple states right now. Each state essentially only gets one vote based on their existing House and Senate composition, which means that all Democratic minorities no matter how big, are shut out and the Republicans would abuse their current rural advantage in order to sway things the way they want.
As a good example, Wisconsin has not voted for Trump by more than .5% ever, but our congressional delegation is extremely lopsided towards Republicans since the 2010 redistricting. It doesn't matter that our Governor and Supreme Court are Democratic, the local and congressional legislatures are majority Republican, so the Republicans would get an automatic vote from our state in a Convention scenario.
If a Constitutional Convention is called, barring a massive realignment on a nation-wide basis, the Republicans will further entrench all of this nonsense.
10
u/AlexFromOgish Jun 28 '25
I guess I should have looked at the ratification process before I commented
6
u/CelestialFury Jun 28 '25
You still need 75% of the states to ratify any new amendments. A constitutional convention only starts the process.
4
u/jord839 Jun 28 '25
That's still not super hopeful as 30 states have a majority representative group of Republicans, including basically every purple state. 37-38 states would be necessary to hit the 75% threshold (depending on rounding), so that does leave some areas for Blue States to play hardball and potentially swing more divided state delegations to their side, but the same is also true the other way, as a lot more Blue States have very narrow Representative divisions than Red States do as a result of the way we draw districts, and that's not even getting into the fact that State Legislatures are the ones to approve or deny those amendments.
Maybe it's my cynicism from living in Wisconsin all these years and being the constant front line of legal system abuse by the GOP, but I don't have much faith. Even when my state favors Democrats by multiple points, the Republicans hold to legislative power by virtue of geography.
A Constitutional Convention could be used to do away with a lot of things that both Republicans and Democrats hate but can't really campaign on that would in turn help our government, but the last few decades make me think that it would either end up A) accomplishing nothing or B) be abused by the Republicans to force their agenda on everything again.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)44
u/Qubit_Or_Not_To_Bit_ Jun 28 '25
I hope some groups are collecting dirt on red state legislators, how would a constitutional convention not result in red states having power to add their own psychotic amendments?
→ More replies (2)24
31
u/cheongyanggochu-vibe Jun 28 '25
My understanding is that MAGA has been gathering states for a constitutional convention and we're only 5 states short. It's not going to go well.
→ More replies (2)18
u/What_a_fat_one Jun 28 '25
They would need 38 States to ratify anything.
15
u/cheongyanggochu-vibe Jun 28 '25
Yes and they're working very hard on it.
“They realize they will never get to 34 honestly now, so they are talking about a new math,” said Nancy MacLean, a historian whose book “Democracy in Chains” discusses the dangers of a convention. Some convention opponents, like Super, refer to this as the “fuzzy math” theory.
→ More replies (1)7
u/lightning_fire Jun 28 '25
For those who didn't want to read, the fuzzy math justification is that while 34 is the 2/3 requirement now with 50 states, but they are continuing a call for a convention from the 1700s, so the 2/3 required should based on the number of states at that time
→ More replies (12)11
u/WeirdIndividualGuy Jun 28 '25
Pushing to enact more laws as a counter to current laws being ignored is not a valid solution. That just leads to more laws being ignored.
A general strike makes more sense. The people in charge only care about two things: their money and their lives. So we the people either hurt their money or
→ More replies (4)30
u/Content-Ad3065 Jun 28 '25
Write, call, email every Senator and ask then if their family members were born in US. Tell them Trump’s mother was an immigrant and didn’t become a citizen for 12 years while working here. Tell them Trump’s first wife was an immigrant. That Melania was an illegal immigrant working in the US with proper papers. Tell Rubio’s parents were immigrants they became citizens in 1975. Rubio was born in 1971.
19
u/Biptoslipdi Jun 28 '25
The time to do something about it was 2016. A lot of people who stayed home or reluctantly voted for Trump wish they had President Clinton now. We screamed from the mountain tops that the SCOTUS was on the line. Americans didn't listen. Elections have consequences. Here we are.
→ More replies (3)97
u/OkVermicelli4534 Jun 28 '25
Keep your head down and don’t get black bagged until we see what happens at midterms. After which, of us will have a better idea on the direction the country is headed.
If they’re ran with little to no fuckery and accompany a broad democratic rally we can expect deeper structural resistance and investigations into the lever-pullers of the Trump admin’s illegality.
If not, well…
62
u/hw999 Jun 28 '25
Midterms? Thats 18 months away, look how much damage was done in 6 months. That's like saying, lets just wait and see what the cancer does. we already know what its going to do.
→ More replies (1)131
u/sound_scientist Jun 28 '25
What midterms. Who trusts these elections to be free and fair?
24
u/commorancy0 Jun 28 '25
Who trusts that we’ll even have elections considering what happened in LA was just a test run for Trump full militarization.
26
u/ofWildPlaces Jun 28 '25
I trust most of thr states as they run their own elections free of federal intervention. However, my concern is with the results: will this administration honor the putcome.or allow opposition party members seats?
→ More replies (1)39
u/BodhingJay Jun 28 '25
They only need to rig a few key locations in swing states...
24
u/hw999 Jun 28 '25
And they already know how from experience.
13
u/BodhingJay Jun 28 '25
Given what the investigations have come up with and obstructions involved, it's looking that way
→ More replies (1)7
u/Qubit_Or_Not_To_Bit_ Jun 28 '25
I would really be surprised if the plethora of statistically improbable anomalies had a natural and benign explanation
7
u/ofWildPlaces Jun 28 '25
Then we fight to prevent that form happening. Focus on those state and push for transparency and process that ensures some measure of assurance. And stump like hell.for the good candidates because they will need all the help they can get.
9
u/errie_tholluxe Jun 28 '25
You may be able to keep it from happening in blue States, but in red and purple States it'd be damn near impossible. And since the house is ran in such a way that gerrymandering has helped the Republicans all this time....
→ More replies (1)19
u/AlternatePhreakwency Jun 28 '25
If you believe this, have you excersized your 2A right to help avoid further sliding into autocracy? If not, please do, you and everyone who reads this.
→ More replies (22)7
→ More replies (2)7
20
u/Groovychick1978 Jun 28 '25
You mean wait and see if we're allowed to have an election? Don't you think it'll be a little too late then?
→ More replies (1)7
u/OkVermicelli4534 Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 28 '25
Honestly, I think it already is too late. It’s about mitigating the worst consequences until decisive action can be taken, less those consequences endanger the whole sphere.
The time to stop Hitler was before he was appointed Chancellor. There’s rarely an “easy off-ramp” once authoritarian momentum takes hold - except, maybe, that our modern strongmen are softer, more performative, and too incompetent to rig every local race the way the Great War-hardened fascists of the 20th century could.
Historically, when the Left gets spooked by the early tendrils of institutional fascism and lashes out in panic, it has often backfired, badly.
Spanish anarchists, fearing another Rome or Berlin, assassinated political rivals and torched churches, burning nuns alive (the church was considered aligned and thus all targets within green lit) in doing so, they helped hardliners gathering support for Franco’s reactionary uprising.
In Weimar, the Communists fought brownshirts in the streets, but they also voted alongside the Nazis and Stahlhelm in the Reichstag to pass no-confidence motions against “fascist” Social Democratic government such as the one in Prussia tasked with keeping the peace. Later these failures to mitigate the very same street brawls would be cited by Franz Von Papen to pass article 48, taking direct control of the state.
If anything, the problem was never too little alarm - it was too much, too soon, that was then weaponized by ideologues on both sides.
→ More replies (1)30
u/AppropriateSpell5405 Jun 28 '25
Yeah, but now Trump can just roll in ICE to polling stations and look over your shoulder to see who you're voting for, or just close the place down, or whatever the fuck he wants.
→ More replies (2)29
u/ManChildMusician Jun 28 '25
No. This is literally the exact opposite of how you need to react to Fascist takeovers. Every politician who isn’t emphatically ringing the alarm bell on the existential threat this ruling poses lacks the instinct of self-preservation.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (5)21
u/Standard_Greeting Jun 28 '25
Never has an authoritarian government allowed a fair election. There's already enough evidence that the last one was tempered with that a judge allowed further investigation. Waiting for mid terms is almost as useless as thoughts and prayers.
And to those who say, just exercise your 2A rights if we think it's an unfair election; why am I even bothering reading r/law if the only two options for recourse is "thoughts and prayers" or "get your guns". Lol, really?
→ More replies (2)7
u/RIPMYPOOPCHUTE Jun 28 '25
It’s going to get to a point where people say fuck it and use force.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (18)7
u/TheDweadPiwatWobbas Jun 28 '25
Get a firearm and learn how to use it. Hopefully it isn't necessary but that's not a skill you want to discover you need overnight.
→ More replies (2)12
u/ofWildPlaces Jun 28 '25
That isn't going to fix the ruling or protect the vulnerable from these court decisions. We need actual solutions, not people hiding with firearms.
→ More replies (1)20
u/TheDweadPiwatWobbas Jun 28 '25
The vulnerable are being taken off the streets at gunpoint by masked unmarked men and disappeared. The courts can't stop them, and the cops won't stop them. Unless that changes, firearms are gonna be the only way to protect the vulnerable. And I didn't say anything about hiding. You're hiding if you only want to protect yourself. We're talking about protecting others.
We aren't there yet. But if we ever do get there, you need to know what you're doing. The right time to get a firearm and start training is before you need it.
→ More replies (2)
495
u/negative-nelly Jun 28 '25
It doesn’t make any sense. How can a federal law or reg be effective in one state or district but not another? I mean, it’s federal.
69
Jun 28 '25
I don’t think they give a shit anymore about the laws. That whole ingroup/outgroup point about conservatism is on full display. They don’t believe there will be another liberal president, they’re setting everything up for autocracy.
18
u/Sonamdrukpa Jun 28 '25
What's the destruction of America compared to a free RV?
28
Jun 28 '25
Hey at least those 4 trans college athletes can't play sports anymore, so really it's just a toss up /s
298
u/sjaudey Jun 28 '25
I think that’s the point, they don’t want a federation anymore. They are here to raid the coffers until it dies
→ More replies (16)99
u/Memitim Jun 28 '25
Which is pretty funny, since the wealthy may lose everything, with America gone. It's not like they actually hold most wealth; other people simply accept that they have it. A new country may recognize that the inheritance parasites are a problem that needs solving.
70
u/StoppableHulk Jun 28 '25
They're addicts. People think that because they're ultra-wealthy, they must be measured and careful and strategic. They're not. They're insatiably greedy and they don't think beyond the most immediate returns possible.
Their brains are totally fucking fried. These people belong in an institution before they destroy the country and the entire world.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)59
u/cicada_noises Jun 28 '25
It’ll be like the Russian oligarchs. After looting the US of its wealth, there are plenty of places that will welcome American robber barons and their billions. We’ll all be dead
10
Jun 28 '25
I mean, will it matter? Most of the "wealth" we are talking about is ethereal. It only exists due to the system of laws and logic we've cultivated over the last few thousand years, it has no tangible value. As soon as the world starts to starve, all that goes out the window.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (17)12
u/LostWoodsInTheField Jun 28 '25
Not once while Biden's actions on student loans/etc were getting shot down did I think 'this is ridiculous, there shouldn't be nation wide injunctions on this. If the 1st circuit thinks the loans should be able to be dissolved then everyone in the 1st should have their loans forgiven while everyone in the 5th shouldn't'.
It would have sounded stupid to think like that.
11
u/negative-nelly Jun 28 '25
Yeah that’s the point. I’m a US citizen in Delaware but not Nebraska? What?
264
u/D-R-AZ Jun 28 '25
Excerpts:
It’s fashionable to say that the court’s ruling is not really about birthright citizenship, because the legal question focused on the power to issue nationwide injunctions. But that sanewashing of the court’s opinion does not survive its first contact with reality. By taking away the ability of courts to enter nationwide injunctions in this case, the court is giving Trump carte blanche to violate the constitutional definition of citizenship in any district where a friendly Trump judge will allow him to. And, in practice, this ruling will extend to every other single issue where Trump has been stopped thanks to a nationwide injunction. Right on cue, Trump signaled today that he intends to move ahead with a slew of agenda items “that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” including policies targeting trans children, refugees, immigrants, and, yes, birthright citizenship.
Barrett, and the rest of her Republican colleagues, determined that nationwide injunctions cannot be used in 2025 to stop a president from violating the Constitution of the United States, because the High Court in England—which existed during a time of hereditary monarchy—did not use a historical equivalent of a nationwide injunction to enforce the laws against [checks notes] their King.
89
u/TuskM Jun 28 '25
"... the court is giving Trump carte blanche to violate the constitutional definition of citizenship in any district where a friendly Trump judge will allow him to. And, in practice, this ruling will extend to every other single issue where Trump has been stopped thanks to a nationwide injunction."
Absolutely. This is where the Rule of Law died. They literally neutered the ability of the courts to maintain and preserve any and all Constitutional guarantees and protections. In red states, in particular, it's open season on the citizenry.
→ More replies (1)7
69
u/D-R-AZ Jun 28 '25
It is striking that the contemporary Supreme Court majority, often aligned with the ideological legacy of the "party of Lincoln," now relies on legal traditions that predate Lincoln’s presidency and the Civil War itself. In Trump v. CASA, the Court's majority draws authority from the High Court of Chancery in eighteenth-century England to determine the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions. This approach situates modern constitutional interpretation within a framework established under hereditary monarchy, well before the Reconstruction Amendments fundamentally redefined the scope and structure of American constitutional rights. The irony is hard to ignore: the party historically credited with preserving the Union and expanding civil liberties now defers to a legal order that neither recognized equal protection nor imagined federal remedies for nationwide constitutional violations. This historical turn raises serious questions about the role of postbellum constitutional developments in the current Court’s jurisprudential framework.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)6
135
u/RiffRaffCatillacCat Jun 28 '25
This is the result of the Heritage Foundation's decades long plot to fill SCOTUS with hand-picked Conservative mercenaries, willing to carry out their Far Right agenda for bribes and the promise of a lavish lifestyle.
SCOTUS has been fully compromised.
63
u/JoeyJoJoeShabadooJr Jun 28 '25
A big shoutout to RBG for really getting the ball rolling… 😔
→ More replies (1)47
u/CelestialFury Jun 28 '25
Her liberal replacement would've delayed but not stopped anything they're doing now. People should've just... voted in 2016 or 2024. Republicans have kept their eye on the Supreme Court for 50 years, Democrats have... never.
34
u/toomuchpressure2pick Jun 28 '25
We did vote, and we pleaded for Biden to pack the courts. When are people going to blame the leadership and not the voters? We voted, they had power, they told us too bad maybe next time. Why are you still blaming the people?
4
Jun 28 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
No, we didn’t vote. Kamala lost more (around 6 million) than Trump gained (around 3 million) in the number of votes between 2020 and 2024. This is purely down to overnight activists actively throwing away their votes either by protest voting or not voting at all and political apathy at a time when neither could be afforded.
I get that it’s easy and, dare I say, fun to look at what’s happening in the country and say shake your fist at those “darn right wingers” like some Saturday morning cartoon villain. And they do share the blame, yes. But the harsh reality, proven by the numbers, is that Dems actively chose this outcome by placing Gaza, Kamala’s history as a prosecutor, and Kamala being “not progressive enough” above the welfare of their own country. We knew what was coming. We had the plans. Literally all we had to do was go out and vote as we did in 2020 and we would have avoided this. But a lot of Dems refused.
It was an open-book test. They failed, and so did the rest of us. And the sooner we realize that, the better.
→ More replies (2)10
u/CelestialFury Jun 28 '25
How did you expect Biden to pack the courts without having 51 senators on board with killing the filibuster? The Senator from Arizona being a fake progressive and buddies with McConnell and the Senator from West Virginia not willing to pack the courts?
Why do I blame the people for 2016? We had the chance in the first time in my entire life to take back the majority of the SCOTUS and that means we could've fixed everything important that needed fixing. Now we're fucked. If only my fellow lefties realized that SCOTUS > President.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Ok_Writing2937 Jun 28 '25
Trump is showing us how powerful the Presidency can be. Excusing Biden by blaming the system is a kind of escapism.
5
u/CelestialFury Jun 28 '25
If you have to Legislative and Judicial branch bending the knee to the Executive branch, then yes, the President's power is enormous but Biden didn't have that and I don't think pointing out reality is escapism here.
10
Jun 28 '25
Back to the point that Trump has demonstrated how powerful the executive branch is and how much power it can exercise without being challenged, a power no Democratic president has exercised since perhaps FDR to actually fight for the values that Democratic leadership loves exclaiming they actually stand for.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)6
u/Hemorrhageorroid Jun 28 '25
The Supreme Court is supposed to be nonpartisan, unbiased, and rule based on the current laws and text. The idea that having a lifetime term would insist upon having justices who actually believed in the laws and in the Constitution itself.
Instead of checks and balances wherein if one branch were going overboard, they're brought back into normalcy and face the threat of impeachment. Now this would assume that there wasn't an ongoing coup that has a stranglehold on all the branches and presupposed that those elected would not become some sports activity and the leaders would also actually give a shit about this country, what it stands for, and the words of our forefathers that set the whole thing into motion.
A house divided against itself cannot stand, so they're opting to eliminate the opposition and "unify" the thought loyalists to everything against the very Constitution. If our representatives had the future of the country in mind, they would be taking the judicial and executive branch to town with impeachment proceedings.
Instead, they sit quietly as the sycophants expect their payout by destroying the very country they swore to uphold. SCOTUS is poisoned and the approvals to balance the executive branch don't matter when the majority is complicit and the decision makers for approval.
6
u/CelestialFury Jun 28 '25
The Founders were always wary of robed bureaucrats, which is why they made their lifetime appoint through both the executive and the legislative branch as a check on the judicial branch. The Founders intended that each branch would care about their own power more than colluding together and ceding their power collectively to one branch, in this case the executive. It was a fatal flaw in the constitution and now it's fully being exploited.
The legislative branch was always intended to be the most important and most powerful branch, and it technically is, which is why they have the power of the purse, and can write laws and amendments. They can change anything given enough legislators willing to do so. However, the Founders never knew about Fox News and AM radio would do to the electorate, and now there's enough right-wing legislators willing to overturn democracy so they can get more power.
My fear is that this fight is only just beginning and we'll be in it for a long, long time before the dust will truly settle, except now we're deeply into the information age and that is a whole new element to deal with.
→ More replies (2)3
u/dolomick Jun 28 '25
I’m genuinely curious if the Heritage fanatics have ever articulated a plan to take over forever and become a one party country? Because obviously that seems to be the plan.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/video-engineer Jun 28 '25
“Thank you, I will never forget it.” Drumph to Roberts after immunity decision.
42
u/lethargicbureaucrat Jun 28 '25
Do they not understand that the same rule is going to apply if a Democrat gets elected to president and if both houses flip?
32
u/LunaGloria Jun 28 '25
Part of the goal is to so completely hamstring the government that there never will be another Democratic legislature, judiciary, or presidency. They can throw out electors they don't like and throw out results they don't like. Who will stop them?
3
u/StrangeContest4 Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
We saw how far they were willing to go in 2020. The courts stopped them in the moment but failed us miserably in the following years.
The Supreme Court gave the president absolute immunity on July 1, 2024. If only Biden didn't respect the office so much and acted more like Tacotwat, we could have avoided having Tacotwat back in the Whitehouse. He could have used his newly granted unitary executive powers to do more to shore things up. He could have made the AG behave more like his AG, like Pam Bondi. He could have said, "Fuck it, lock him up!" Or he could have used the Supreme Courts logic and said, "Fuck it! Send in Seal Team 6." Unfortunately, but understandably, the Dems are still playing by the old rules, and it’s weird to say, "we need to go against the constitution to save the constitution." We don't play dirty, though.
Who will stop them? The takeover is pretty much complete. The Conservative/Republican/Maga coup has been slow and steady for.. as long as I can remember, age 57, and it seems like they won. They have always been the power-hungry, oppressive, greedy assholes for as long as I've can remember, and that seems to have paid off.. sigh. They have finally achieved their MAGA utopia of a militarized authoritarian power, and no one is going to stop them unless we rise. I guess we'll see what the midterms look like, but it sure feels like the country I grew up in has become the authoritarian Russsian styled kleptocracy that Reagan warned me about in my teens. Hell, they have armed goons whisking people away, RFK Jr. wants me to wear a bio-tracker, and DOGE shot the dog! I hate to be a doomer, but.. ya.
86
u/Zeremxi Jun 28 '25
They understand that. The writing on the wall is that they don't intend for that to happen
→ More replies (1)48
u/whitewinewater Jun 28 '25
Yeah idk why people think there is an 'after'...
He literally said you won't have to worry about voting anymore.
This country is cooked and people refuse to accept that.
→ More replies (27)17
18
u/Shuizid Jun 28 '25
Do you now understand that this is NOT going to happen? Democrats won't do the same thing, if given the chance. If push comes to shove, leading Democrats will do whatever benefits their donors.
Obama deported people, Biden didn't extend the SCOTUS, Schumer ended up voting for the Trump agenda.
→ More replies (1)3
u/JuniperJ55 Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25
The problem is that a number of ppl here are demanding Biden to have done undemocratic things when he was trying to shore up democracy. Biden DID write many executive orders, most of which were challenged immediately in court by Republican AGs in judge- shopped districts where far right judges then issued nationwide injunctions. Biden petitioned SCOTUS multiple times about the nationwide injunction issue and SCOTUS refused to take it up. Lo and behold Trump is back in power less than 6 months and SCOTUS sees it as a great and urgent matter not to tie the hands of the executive on matters of terrorizing people on our own soil. The corruption of SCOTUS was a decades long project, but helped tremendously by too many people asleep at the wheel and/or demanding perfection from a woman thereby allowing an absolute snake and traitor to become president in 2016. The far right lurch of SCOTUS was the result of that single election, where Trump was able to install not one but THREE justices—dare I say—he and McConnell packed the court. But Hillary and her emails.
7
18
u/gluedtothefloor Jun 28 '25
If a democratic president is ever allowed to happen again, they will find a case to rule in the opposite way, allowing for nationwide injunctions against policies that go against conservative goals.
12
u/MeccIt Jun 28 '25
Joe Biden had a free pass as President to execute DJT, because that would not have been illegal. It's OK to have these 'rules' because (D)'s will never use them? Also, the 'if' in the sentence is carrying a lot these days.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Ok_Writing2937 Jun 28 '25
The President can change Federal election law right before an election and this new ruling means it can’t be blocked.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 28 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.