Summary

A U.S. appeals court has blocked Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency stay request, upholding a lower court’s nationwide injunction.

The ruling, made by a three-judge panel, argued that citizenship rights under the 14th Amendment are beyond presidential authority to alter.

The Justice Department is appealing similar rulings in other states, and the case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Arguments in the 9th Circuit case are set for June.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 days ago

    “That’s what the WOKE JUDGES say, but WE ALL KNOW they’re not Americans!”

    Yes, I threw up in my mouth a little bit having to come up with that. But the fact is that they can just ignore the courts and the Constitution, because who’s going to stop them? The Department of Justice?

    It’s going to have to be you. And me. And our friends, family, neighbors. We’re on the fourth box, and making use of it will entail conflicts far worse than this country has previously experienced.

    • BaldProphet@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Edit: By downvoting me you are advocating for violence.

      I think it’s too soon to say we’re on the fourth box already. Let’s wait until SCOTUS and the impeachment in Congress fail.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        2 days ago

        The SCOTUS that ruled that this sitting president cannot be criminally charged for anything he does while in office, as long as it’s an “official act”? This president who recently echoed Napoleon and Nixon with “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law”? Who sits in the White House that repeated his “LONG LIVE THE KING” statement with a picture of him as a king?

        Or did I miss a /s on your comment?

        • BaldProphet@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          You’re literally advocating for a civil war, and used the “four boxes” analogy. We haven’t finished with the first three boxes yet.

      • Match!!@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        i don’t advocate for violence but we should surely do more than wait for the coming failure

        • BaldProphet@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          You first, friend. Lock and load, am I right?

          Or… we could actually exhaust legal avenues before we start shooting.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            For the record, I wasn’t advocating a civil war. I was predicting one.

            Give me a reason to think this will end any other way.

          • snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            I imagine going to a foreign country and attempting to start some kind of insurrection would probably cause more problems than it would solve tbh. I’m just concerned that legal action won’t be fast or effective enough to stop things getting much worse. Though blowing things up (literally and otherwise) will probably just speed everything up, good and bad.

      • DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s difficult to let the judicial system move through its processes so slowly, but I agree with this comment. If the people decide to invalidate the courts by taking matters into their own hands, then they are no better than those who seek to defy the courts. If you believe in democracy then you must also have some faith in the courts, no? That’s not to say the courts won’t fail, but circumventing them prematurely would be, as I see it, a definitive loss for the people.

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Have you ehm, seen what the courts have done lately?

          Rule of law in the USA is over

        • GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s difficult to let the judicial system move through its processes so slowly

          4+ years of waiting for Garland to do fucking something, and you suggest we wait longer?! So, the time for action is right after the noose is around or necks…?

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    2 days ago

    Trump Proposes X.
    Media: “Trump can’t do X.”
    Trump [Does it anyway.]
    Media: “Judge says Trump can’t do X.”
    Trump: [Does it anyway.]
    Media: “Trump uses executive order to do X.”
    Trump: [Was doing it from the start.]

  • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 days ago

    OK, here we go, round one @ the Supreme Court re: rule by edict.

    This is the real canary to see if we still have a country

    • stopdropandprole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      facts.

      sadly though, even if they stop one thing, they will not stop em all. he’s setting a precedent every future President king of America will use to further the agenda of the ruling class (unless an FDR figure emerges to redirect that power at wealth redistribution).

      the president may in fact now be a king and both parties (one party really - the ultra rich) has either actively enabled or done almost nothing to dismantle executive authority since at least Reagan.

      the monarchists won control of the country, backed by corporatist billionaires. time will tell if it’s reversible or even salvageable. might be wise to begin building the figurative life rafts.

    • hansolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, but this one is an intentional huge over-reach. So when other, less outright violations of the Constition come up, they’ll seem like no big deal by comparison.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    So new law…the president can fire the appeals court! Sounds great!

    Appeals court: oh he’s right, let’s all quit before he fires us. Makes total sense.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    We need all the push back we can get. He’s doing wildly illegal stuff and trying to get away with it. The courts still have some influence to keep people from carrying out the orders, but this really is a stress test of the separation of powers.