this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
46 points (97.9% liked)

Law

732 readers
99 users here now

Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?"

all 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] officermike@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Well, well, well, look at the time.

[–] Shawdow194@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course he does he loves the taste of boot leather.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 1 month ago

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.