July 1, 2025
The United States Supreme Court has at long last ruled on an important issue. After months of federal district court judges issuing rulings opposing and halting actions by President Donald Trump, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump's efforts to end "birthright" citizenship are legal and constitutional.
Not only was it found that the decision on birthright citizenship was valid, it also tells these judges to stop issuing these universal injunctions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in the majority opinion, stated: "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government's applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue."
“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,” she continued. “The Court today puts an end to the ‘increasingly common’ practice of federal courts issuing universal injunctions.”
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson commented in a dissenting opinion: “Make no mistake: Today’s ruling allows the Executive to deny people rights that the Founders plainly wrote into our Constitution, so long as those individuals have not found a lawyer or asked a court in a particular manner to have their rights protected,” she wrote. “This perverse burden shifting cannot coexist with the rule of law.”
However, Barrett promptly and properly corrected Jackson’s flawed reasoning. "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary."
She further clarified that when these judges issue injunctions to block Trump’s actions, they cannot apply the injunction to more than those parties involved in the case, classifying these nationwide injunctions as judicial overreach.
There are 677 authorized judgeships for these federal courts, with each of those judges having authority over a tiny sliver of the United States of America’s judicial system.
One has to wonder exactly what these judges, supposedly trained in the law and our Constitution, were thinking when issuing these injunctions. Did they forget their extensive training in the law? Or, did they stuff their judicial integrity under the courtroom bench, and replace legal elements with political preferences?
Does this un-judicial behavior warrant some disciplinary action for those guilty judges.
“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! Even the Birthright Citizenship Hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves … not the SCAMMING of our Immigration process,” Trump commented. “Congratulations to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Solicitor General John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.”
Elsewhere, in San Francisco and New York City, we find the “progressives” hard at it.
Recently, the California Senate reportedly passed a law making it illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters.
Old Navy, which is headquartered in San Francisco, announced that it will close its flagship store there. When asked why, an Old Navy store manager said that his store is hit by shoplifters at least 12 or 14 times a day.
Other name brands have also left the city, including Walgreens, T-Mobile, Whole Foods, Amazon Go, and Nordstroms.
Other downtown stores are merely waiting for their leases to run out, and then they will also leave.
The City of San Francisco just released a $6 million tourism campaign, and the next day the two largest hotels in the city shut down, blaming street conditions, and apparently not believing the tourism campaign would make a difference.
State Farm Insurance has announced that it will no longer provide business and property insurance in California, following Allstate, which left six months ago, due to policies that encourage lawbreaking.
These foolish leftist policies are producing exactly the results that their critics predicted.
And in New York City, a 33-year-old state assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani, is the Democratic candidate for New York City Mayor, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the first Muslim nominee, and a supporter of radical policies.
Predictably, he has an extremely radical plan for New York, should he win the election.
"This is a city where one in four of its people are living in poverty, a city where 500,000 kids go to sleep hungry every night," he said recently. "And ultimately, it's a city that is in danger of losing that which it makes it so special."
He has proposed the following radical ideas to cure New York’s problems: Free bus service citywide, rent freezes and stricter accountability for negligent landlords, a chain of city-owned grocery stores, and universal childcare for children aged six weeks to five years.
As with so much of the liberal/socialist/progressive mantra, these things sound pretty good. But they don’t work as imagined. Ideas like defunding police, not enforcing some laws, rental price freezes, having the City own and control the grocery stores, and some of his former “solutions” are a recipe for disaster.
Just ask the businesses and residents in San Francisco.
No comments:
Post a Comment