Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appeared on Thursday to support Donald Trump’s push to curtail the power of federal judges.
The situation unfolded during Supreme Court arguments over an executive order signed by Trump that aimed to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to non-citizen or non-permanent resident parents.
The Department of Justice has argued that judges on lower-level courts should only have the power to issue rulings on a specific group of people involved in a suit, and not issue nationwide injunctions.
Justice Thomas appeared to support that argument when discussing the history of universal injunctions with Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Justice Thomas asked: “So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?”
Of course he does he loves the taste of boot leather.
Yup. Life was great for all americans before the 60’s. White, black, whatever. Im sorry clarence I so wish I could put you and your family back to the 50’s so you could enjoy the good life.
I honestly don’t understand why this isn’t the opposite case, where the government should have to bring to court every individual case that they want to deny birthright citizenship to.
This is essentially what the liberal judges are wondering too. Trump’s lawyers seem to be arguing that the default should be to suspend people’s due process rights, instead of accepting the burden of having to prove their case against each person.
This creates a system where instead of the government protecting people’s rights…the people are obligated to defend their rights from the government.
It’s a terrifying outcome, but that appears to be where the Trump administration is heading with all this. You are guilty until proven innocent, and no one is obligated to provide proof of your guilt, in order to pass sentence on you. It’s up to you to prove your innocence…which any lawyer with half a degree will tell you, is impossible. You can’t provide evidence for something that doesn’t exist.
Well, well, well, look at the time.
Old coke pubes shilling for trump is the least surprising thing I’ve read today. Clearance is for sale - just buy him an RV or send him on yaht trip with his billionaire buddies and he will vote however you tell him to.
Its never happened because its never been so obvious for a lower court to rule in favour of the constitution
Its like being upset a case asking “if grass is green” didnt make it to the supreme court. If a lower court determines “yes, grass IS green” then the supreme court should get the same ruling and can avoid the extra case/escalation unless its appealed
Justice Thomas asked: “So, we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions?”
Not that he cares, but we survived until the 1960s without civil rights.
We survived until the 1920s without women voting.
We survived until the 1970s without mobile phones.
We survived until the 1980s without the Internet.
That we survived until x without y is a meaningless argument. Times change, and things come into fruition that serve a valuable role in society. Deal with it, you fucking corrupt dinosaur.
Survivalist bias as a legal argument by a justice of the SCOTUS. Jesus. Maybe someone should ask him whether he’d even exist without civil rights.
IMO even holding a conversation with someone like this is a waste. His wife calls the shots. He’s just out doing what he’s told.
At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me if he ruled against interracial marriage.
