Strong article by Joyce Vance: John Roberts Says the Rule of Law Is Endangered

[erronis]

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/john-roberts-says-the-rule-of-law

Glad he's finally figured out what he's done to it

Normally, Joyce Vance is quite measured in her comments. This post today is very strong. Just excerpted the first few paragraphs.

This was the headline at Politico yesterday: “Rule of law is ‘endangered,’ chief justice says.”

Oh really? I hadn’t noticed.

It went on, “Speaking at Georgetown Law, Chief Justice John Roberts denounced ‘ad hominem’ criticism of the justices.”

Apparently, this is what it takes to get the chief justice’s attention. Giving a crooked president a pass on being prosecuted? As we know all too well, Roberts was down with that. But when it comes to criticizing judges, well, that’s a bridge too far.

I’m no fan of endangering judges, but there’s a difference between criticizing and targeting, and my First Amendment rights say the former is okay—I try to exercise them extensively, as appropriate. And if you’re a longtime reader you know that my criticism and approval of judges doesn’t line up neatly with my politics, which is how it should be. Unfortunately, in the time of Trump, those lines are drawn a little more squarely: the predictable two on the Supreme Court, a certain federal judge in Miami, and another in Amarillo, Texas. If the judiciary doesn’t want to be caricatured, its members should avoid becoming caricatures.

. . .

[gab13by13]

1. We shall see if he puts his decision where his mouth is

for the upcoming case on birth right citizenship which is about so much more than that. If the SC rules in favor of Magats it will neuter the lower courts. A Magat ruling will say that the lower courts can't make decisions that apply outside their circuits. That would throw everything to the Supreme Court and bypass the lower courts.

[malaise]

2. THIS

Rec

[harumph]

3. Yeah who wouldv'e guessed that when you legalize bribery

aka "Citizens United," and the creation of super PACs, vast corruption would follow?
Arsonist expresses surprise (and concern) that the consititution can actually burn.

[spanone]

4. Well, Mr. Roberts, you gave immunity to a raving narcissist...

and he's using that to kill America and he doesn't give a shit what you order him to do.

[Tickle]

6. May 15, Cases being by SC

Cases Being Heard
The consolidated cases are:

Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884)

Trump v. Washington (24A885)

Trump v. New Jersey (24A886)

These cases challenge nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts that blocked the enforcement of Executive Order 14160, which aimed to deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary residents.

Focus of the Oral Arguments
While the executive order itself raises significant constitutional questions, particularly concerning the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, the Supreme Court's current focus is narrower. The Court will examine whether federal district judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions that prevent the enforcement of federal policies beyond the specific parties involved in a case. The Trump administration argues that such broad injunctions exceed judicial authority and disrupt the implementation of federal policies.


Significance
The outcome of these hearings could have far-reaching implications:

Judicial Authority: A decision limiting the scope of nationwide injunctions could reshape how federal policies are challenged and enforced across the country.

Executive Power: The case tests the extent of presidential authority in redefining citizenship criteria without constitutional amendments.

Constitutional Interpretation: It brings into question the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the precedent set by United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which affirmed birthright citizenship.

Public Access
C-SPAN has requested permission to televise the oral arguments, citing the case's national importance. However, the Supreme Court has historically prohibited cameras in the courtroom. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court has provided live audio streams of oral arguments, a practice that continues.

The oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. EDT on May 15. Audio recordings and transcripts will be made available on the Supreme Court'