Thread
All people's rights under the Constitution are, per the Supreme Court, 100% alienable. If you cannot hire a lawyer and engage in effective litigation against the power of the entire executive branch of the federal government, you have no rights at all.
https://bsky.app/profile/craigcalcaterra.bsky.social/post/3lsltqtbnzs2t
America doing a phenomenal job of burning itself down
Do love hitting refresh over and over again to learn what my rights are.
What else can I say but Death to America
It'll be a trip seeing how the Blusky libs post about July 4th. I imagine...
I'm going to celebrate the holiday and I will not think about Trump nor the conservative justices. For me the flag is...
Good luck with that.
Reminds me, I need to borrow a flag to use as a firestarter
Now things will have to get to the Supreme Court for universal injections. Aka many years and legal battles. Wheels are falling off this train.
Thread
In a deathblow to the ability to stop blatantly lawless and unconstitutional actions by the government, the Supreme Court just gutted the ability to get universal injunctions.
[...]
It's not hyperbole to call this case the death of meaningful constitutional rights in the United States. If you do not have an attorney that can litigate against the government, you no longer have rights. This will go down in history as the gutting of the constitutional order.
As a practical matter, the Trump administration can start drawing up its plans to strip citizenship of millions of people and render them stateless. We could be weeks to months away from thousands losing citizenship by falling through the legal cracks.
OP, I don't want to be mean, but the way you made this thread is deeply confusing and you should not make threads like this in the future.
seconded
???
I think you posted the bluesky thread as a number of comments in this thread? Its confusing and out of order and probably would have been better if it was copy pasted into the body of the post instead.
So an NBC article says that injunctions would now "apply only to states, groups and individuals that sued."
Does that mean an injunction granted for a state suing on behalf of its residents would protect all those residents? Or is it more that it would protect only the state government itself?
If it's the former, feels like yet another way life in blue and red states is seriously diverging
I have no idea and I'm really curious about that too. I follow a lot of people on law Bluesky and I've looked at a ton of posts already but I only found one post on that. It was by the CEO of the Onion.
So am I reading this court decision correctly? We now have 50 micronations with their own laws interpreting the U.S. Constitution wholly separate from one another? But there's one guy with private law enforcement who is immune from all punishment who can do whatever he wants in those 50 states?
https://bsky.app/profile/bencollins.bsky.social/post/3lslvdqutyk2o
So far it seems to be all jokes. Maybe in the coming hours - there will be some serious law content in there.
--
Edit
This is related - https://hexbear.net/comment/6284526
Balkanize already.
I don't wish to leave my comrades in red states exposed directly to the fascist US, but at the same time id like to be able to build a safe, equitable, and affordable place for them to move to.
Kavanaugh's concurrence gives the game away: the Supreme Court will continue to rule on quasi-nationwide injunctions. It will just do so through the shadow docket, ensuring that all efforts to block GOP actions are stopped, and all efforts to block Democratic actions are approved.
https://bsky.app/profile/sashotodorov.bsky.social/post/3lsltjtemrs2l
---
Edit
An incredibly naïve take about this an MSNBC legal guy named Andrew Weissmann. He actually "Well, actually"ed common sense takes.
The S Ct today did NOT deny anyone birthright citizenship; it addressed "nationwide injunctions," limiting courts from issuing them. They can issue injunctions within their district. Remember: this will prevent conservative judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in mifepristone and other cases.
https://bsky.app/profile/weissmann.substack.com/post/3lslyilodas2d
Surely the Supreme Court will remain consistent when it comes to those conservative nation-wide injunctions. Definitely nothing to worry about here.
In a coincidence he was on MSNBC and got to hear him explain he that there was a "silver lining" of "a few positive crumbs". I couldn't follow his comments or his logic at all. It seemed like he was talking in circles. The next legal expert was having none of it. She said there was no silver lining and the ruling was atrocious.
Thread
The federal government could announce tomorrow that it will no longer recognize same-sex marriages and every single person in one would need to sue to enforce the recognition of their marriage. If you can't sue, it won't be recognized. No right is safe.
AP - full text
Trump says he will ‘promptly file’ to push policies after court’s decision. Speaking from the White House, Trump said he would try to advance restrictions on birthright citizenship and other policies that had been blocked by district courts.
Oh yeah a civil war within my, and my babies, lifetime.
If it's any consolation, I don't think there are forces to actually fight Trump so no civil war will happen. Just legal disputes and so on until libs start being executed at brunch.
Yeah…we’ll see
How do you see it playing out?
Genuinely curious, never really saw the claims of civil war playing out since there needs to be an opposing armed force for that to happen and I expect there to be none but would like to know if I'm missing something or misunderstanding.
Libs won't fight. Instead - they will bask in the moral high ground which shall be their glorious Pyrrhic victory.
FIGHT LIKE HELL 
Nowadays civil war is just sectarian violence and shifting coalitions.
until libs start being executed at brunch
"They really rushed us out. I wish I could have finished my mimosa."
"What the fuck are you talking about! Dakota was just shot in the head! Don't you care?!"
"Yeah. But I might never been able again to have brunch in my lifetime. So I still wish I could have finished my mimosa."
It’s going to be sectarian violence, and coalition groups fighting. And given the history of counter insurgency in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, your neighbor will report you to the nearest torture center. And they’ll drone strike your mom in the process of trying to get you.
A civil war is just a revolution in progress comrade. Revolution in our lifetime!
Time to enact Hexbear citizenship
Thread
This is a monstrous court that has decided that it agrees with Stephen Miller that America is a nation by and for white people and everyone else is just a guest whose invite can be rescinded at their leisure.
https://bsky.app/profile/adamserwer.bsky.social/post/3lsltxaynck2m
Door still open for nationwide injunctions, a legal scholar says
The ruling has struck a blow to the power lower courts will have to check executive overreach. But exactly what will happen next remains to be seen.
The court found that injunctions must be limited to the plaintiffs who sue the government - they cannot be broadly applied nationwide, as has been the case.
Margo Schlanger, who teaches at University of Michigan Law School and is the director of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, says that while the court has made it "much harder" for people to fight presidential orders, it has left a door open for states to sue on behalf of citizens nationwide.
Over 20 states filed suit against the president's order to limit birthright citizenship. Now, lower courts have 30 days to review their nationwide injunctions and decide if or how they should be narrowed in order to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling.
These states could still decide that a nationwide injunction is appropriate, she said, giving the example of an argument suggesting one was necessary because a person with citizenship in New Jersey could lose that protection if they cross the border into New York.
“It narrowed the path for an injunction, but it didn’t cut it off completely," Ms Schlanger said.
Crucially, at least for now, children born in the US are still citizens, she added.
Great...
Lawmakers react to court's decision
published at 14:46
The leading Democrats on Capitol Hill have sharply criticised the Supreme Court's decision to curb judges' power to block President Donald Trump's orders nationwide.
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the court"recklessly limited the ability of federal district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. However, the judicial fight to protect birthright citizenship is alive and well. Every child born in the United States is an American citizen. We will not rest until that constitutional right is completely and unequivocally protected."
US Senate's Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the ruling as "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy".
"By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution—it’s defacing it," he added.
Republican leaders have welcomed of the decision.
"The Supreme Court made it clear that these rogue politically-motivated judges have exceeded their authority, and this overtly political practice must end," House Speaker Mike Johnson said.
Vice President JD Vance said "A huge rulling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law -including judges!
Step towards authoritarianism? So Chuck, when do you think we'll actually arrive at authoritarianism, exactly? Not there yet according to you?
Authoritarianism can only be approached by Trump until he implements full communism. Since Trump is in power but isn't pushing communism, he is only a fascist approaching authoritarianism. Mandani, on the other hand, despite having limited power but because he is pushing for communist marxist socialism is an authoritarian. China's Xi is an authoritarian fascist communist. North Korea is totalitarian fascism and Iran is ISIS.
Please subscribe to my channel if you want to learn more about politics.
Let me ask you this: what is technofeudalism, and does it make you an authoritarian if you're participating in it?
Technofeudalism is when online platforms deny free speech and other liberties found in democracies around the world that follow the principles of the Enlightenment. For example, Lemmy is technofedualist because it is ran by authoritarian communists who do not support personal liberties such as free speech. Due to the collectivization of farmland and the rapid levels of industrialization and technological development under the Soviet Empire, Stalin is widely considered to be the first technofeudalist.
Whereas, reddit, X, and Facebook support the market place of ideas and are technodemocratic institutions. The use of these platforms can encourage those suffering under tyranny to learn about their personal rights and freedoms not given to them by their regimes, this is why Venezuelans are not allowed to access the internet under Castro-Chavezism.
It’s amazing how even after all this they still believe the law is some higher power they can use to cast spells against the state and not a man-made invention wielded by the state
authoritarianism is approached asymptotically, we never actually reach it even if we can be infinitely close.
Like Iranian nuclear armament
looking forward to the day where the government needs to process citizenship for every newborn showing that their parents citizenship goes back at least 3 generations
jdpon don setting up the ability to deport even the white colonizers finally a big w for our native brothers and sisters
Thinking about her...
Spoiler
She's the senate parliamentarian.
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.