• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    40
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”

    They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1311 days ago

      I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1611 days ago

        It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 days ago

        Yup. That’s how it is currently. Doesn’t have to be state by state either. Even more granular. Individuals who file suit and win can be immune to it, but other in the same state who have not filed suit could be vulnerable to it. The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on whether the order is unconstitutional or not.