Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
In Plain English -- Tom Sullivan
https://digbysblog.net/2025/05/15/in-plain-english/
Ninety minutes after this post goes live, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in three consolidated cases as part of its “so-called ‘shadow docket’ – only to be set for oral arguments,” Amy Howe writes at SCOTUSblog. But is what’s really on the docket the court’s remaining credibility?
A nationwide injunction
Howe explains:
As in, how dare any lowly judge interfere with my princely decries?
The cases at issue center on whether a judge anywhere can block nationally Trump’s executiove orders. Specifically, the executive order Trump signed on January 20 to end birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil. The Fourteenth Amendment is not explicitly at issue this morning, but it’s language is explicit. Through his actions against noncitizens since reclaiming the Oval Office, Trump means to void the entirety of Section 1: birthright citizenship, “due process” and “equal protection”:
Birthright citizenship has been upheld since first challenged in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and in over a century of subsequent decisions.
. . .
A nationwide injunction
Howe explains:
Though the dispute comes to the justices through challenges to Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship, the primary issue before the court on Thursday is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can bar the government from enforcing an executive order – or, in another case, a law or policy – anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional.
As in, how dare any lowly judge interfere with my princely decries?
The cases at issue center on whether a judge anywhere can block nationally Trump’s executiove orders. Specifically, the executive order Trump signed on January 20 to end birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil. The Fourteenth Amendment is not explicitly at issue this morning, but it’s language is explicit. Through his actions against noncitizens since reclaiming the Oval Office, Trump means to void the entirety of Section 1: birthright citizenship, “due process” and “equal protection”:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Birthright citizenship has been upheld since first challenged in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and in over a century of subsequent decisions.
. . .
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
“They come to me.” — Jane Roberts
’They come to me’: Jane Roberts’ legal recruiting work involved officials whose agencies had cases before the Supreme Court
In newly revealed testimony, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts said she worked for “U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators” and more.
By HAILEY FUCHS and JOSH GERSTEIN
Politico, 01/31/2023
Jane Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, acknowledges having represented a wide variety of public officials — including senior Justice Department officials and Cabinet members — as they transitioned to jobs in the private sector, according to testimony in an arbitration hearing to resolve a lawsuit filed by an ex-colleague against her former legal recruiting business.
A partial transcript of that testimony was included in a complaint submitted to the House, Senate and Justice Department filed in December on behalf of the former colleague.
Snip…
Jane Roberts’ placements included at least one firm with a prominent Supreme Court practice, according to the complaint, which also includes sworn testimony from Roberts herself, in which she notes the powerful officials — whose agencies have had frequent cases before her husband — for whom she has worked.
“A significant portion of my practice on the partner side is with senior government lawyers, ranging from U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators, chairmen of federal commissions, general counsel of federal commissions, and then senior political appointees within the ranks of various agencies, and I -- they come to me looking to transition to the private sector,” Roberts said, according to a transcript of a 2015 arbitration hearing related to her former colleague’s termination.
In her testimony, Roberts also noted the benefit of working with senior government officials: “Successful people have successful friends.”
Continues…
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/jane-roberts-legal-recruiting-work-agencies-cases-supreme-court-00080515
Remarkable sentence to write: The President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States and his wife, most all Republican elected officials in office today and their supporters are traitors and co-conspirators in treason. If they weren't, they'd support the Constitution of the United States.
’They come to me’: Jane Roberts’ legal recruiting work involved officials whose agencies had cases before the Supreme Court
In newly revealed testimony, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts said she worked for “U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators” and more.
By HAILEY FUCHS and JOSH GERSTEIN
Politico, 01/31/2023
Jane Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, acknowledges having represented a wide variety of public officials — including senior Justice Department officials and Cabinet members — as they transitioned to jobs in the private sector, according to testimony in an arbitration hearing to resolve a lawsuit filed by an ex-colleague against her former legal recruiting business.
A partial transcript of that testimony was included in a complaint submitted to the House, Senate and Justice Department filed in December on behalf of the former colleague.
Snip…
Jane Roberts’ placements included at least one firm with a prominent Supreme Court practice, according to the complaint, which also includes sworn testimony from Roberts herself, in which she notes the powerful officials — whose agencies have had frequent cases before her husband — for whom she has worked.
“A significant portion of my practice on the partner side is with senior government lawyers, ranging from U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators, chairmen of federal commissions, general counsel of federal commissions, and then senior political appointees within the ranks of various agencies, and I -- they come to me looking to transition to the private sector,” Roberts said, according to a transcript of a 2015 arbitration hearing related to her former colleague’s termination.
In her testimony, Roberts also noted the benefit of working with senior government officials: “Successful people have successful friends.”
Continues…
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/jane-roberts-legal-recruiting-work-agencies-cases-supreme-court-00080515
Remarkable sentence to write: The President of the United States, the Chief Justice of the United States and his wife, most all Republican elected officials in office today and their supporters are traitors and co-conspirators in treason. If they weren't, they'd support the Constitution of the United States.