Public opinion is predominantly negative, with significant distrust towards the government's motives for enforcing Section 152. Many users perceive the law as a potential threat to free speech and civil liberties, voicing concerns about historical oppression. There is a collective urgency among commenters to safeguard against governmental overreach as they call for vigilance in protecting democratic rights.

Indian Government

Supreme Court

I am so freaking angry.... I am Just venting here... Please ignore if not helpful....

Actual animal birth control rules 2023, mandate sterilization and immunization, and returning dogs to their original locations in the city.

Nicely, ignored by the Supreme Court, and also gave the MCD a free pass as the whole issue is the Delhi municipality's sheer incompetence for decades of not doing this programme well.... Corruption kare MCD,  Kaam na kare MCD.... And who gets AFFECTED? STRAY DOGS

As always the voiceless, in this case, dogs, will suffer in the worst way possible now..... BTW jo dogs ke Saath kar rahe hain, kal ko wo humans ke Saath bhi hoga... 

Court says start with 5000 dogs, Delhi has up to 10 lakh dogs - this is impossible it will be done well 

Will only encourage more violence towards both dogs and animal feeders like me, with full protection/freedom by the Supreme Court given to people for violence against dogs and feeders.

YukiKuriSushi

Supreme Court trying to be *Kutto ka Mussolini* when they should try to be *Kutto ka Sanjay Gandhi*.

LifelessKing01

  
You can try taking the defense that you are a "blind person" and you were not aware about what kind of document you were signing. At least the Court will ask you if you were blind because how come you did not read the buyer's name in the agreement when you were signing the sale agreement and/or sale deed? And how come you didnt see the buyer in the Registrar's office?  
  
You like have no legal recourse if the document has been registered and any payments have been done. The Supreme Court judgment likely you are pinning your hopes on does not apply to your case.

Your impression of "selling to someone else" is not 'evidence' enough in Court. Opposite party will claim that you merely want to reverse the transfer and you are making things up.

Infact, I personally feel that you are regretting the transfer perhaps because you now found out that the land could get you a better price, and therefore you are making up this to try and get some advice. To me, it feels that you are falsely claiming to be a victim.

Some unscrupulous practitioners will you that you can still file a case, send a legal notice, etc. But all these are just white-collar scamsters who are trying to sell their services to you, fully knowing that the matter will be rejected in future.

Psychological-Buy236

Don’t go by the headlines. The recent judgement said that registration does not prove ownership in a very different context. Where the property was transferred someone by who did not have title to the property, just because it was subsequently registered by the buyer, would not grant him ownership of the property. If you sell something without being the owner, just because their is proper paperwork doesn’t make the sale is valid. 

You had title to the property, you signed it yourself. So this judgement does not apply to you. You can go to court and claim fraud and ask for cancellation of the sale deed and other documents granting titlte to your brother. In the meantime, ask for temporary injunction to stop him from creating any third party rights.

akshitc31

One question. Did you ever go to a sub-registrar or tehsil office to get the sale deed registered?

gurtejgps

Yes , you can legally challenge the property transfer. Despite signing the documents, if you were misled or defrauded by your brother, you can file:
	1.	Civil Suit – for cancellation of sale deed and declaration of ownership under fraud (Specific Relief Act, Sec 31).
	2.	Criminal Complaint – for cheating, fraud, and breach of trust (IPC Sec 420, 406).
	3.	The recent Supreme Court ruling that “registry does not prove ownership” strengthens your case—it shows that sale deeds aren’t conclusive without proving intent and valid consideration.


So if you can understand that proving intent is the whole game changer. Yeah.

No-Cut-3529

/u/TheDrakkar12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1lxlera/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_supreme_court_allowing/), in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

DeltaBot

I am also a NeverTrump Republican (although my allegiance to the latter has wavered significantly in the last 9 months).  I agree with you that Trump's positions on these matters are odious, but you are incorrect on the Court's behavior.

&gt; 1) The ruling to pause all injunctions on Trump deporting people to foreign countries without allowing them to contest, 

I don't know exactly which case you're referring to here, as there were a few, but the issue is generally the same: on a dispassionate view of the merits, the administration is likely to win.  Like it or not, the executive branch is given a lot of leeway on immigration issues, and they're likely to win the argument at court.  Whether it *should* be that way is a different discussion, but not one SCOTUS can solve.

&gt; 2) The pause on the injunction against birthright citizenship. 

This was not a pause on this particular injunction, but a rejection of national injunctions issued on the district level.  This has been a particular problem for years, noted in several opinions and dissents over the years.

More importantly for your purposes, however, is that birthright citizenship wasn't in front of the court.  The challenge that reached the bench was about the injunctions, not the law itself.  A case directly challenging birthright citizenship is probably 9-0 against the government, but that case hasn't been requested yet.

&gt; This is a tactic that seems specifically aimed to allow the court to delay, or even worse set the groundwork to allow the president to violate clear wording in the constitution. 

On a personal level, sure.  This does feel like the court is not "up for the moment."  On the other hand, though, SCOTUS operates outside of the political cycle, and their rulings have a longer shelf-life than your typical legislative issue. I'm unsure as to how SCOTUS can both constrain Trump while also not overly impacting those who come after him while also staying within the law.

&gt; In my recollection, we've always had the supreme court stand pretty close to the most literal reading of the constitution and for the first time ever it appears they are about to rule against clear wording. The premise that the president may be able to act in defiance of a literalist constitution without a judicial check is probably the most concerning development in my lifetime

Thankfully, this didn't happen.  If anything, their adherence to the text is what's keeping them from overcompensating against Trump's lawlessness, and the restraint is the real harm, albeit legal.

&gt;  A) convince me that the fourteenth amendment doesn't actually grant birthright citizenship, convince me that the due process statement in the constitution doesn't apply to all people in the US (this specifically doesn't say citizens),

To be clear: this was not put in front of SCOTUS to adjudicate. There is little reason to believe that they would rule against this.

&gt; B) convince me that this isn't the Supreme Court taking an anti-constitutional approach to rulings and that the core document of our republic is still being respected by the highest court. 

The questions in front of them have been maddeningly narrow, and we're seeing that even from some of the recent concurrences from Kagan and (of all people) Sotomayor: whether they agree with the underlying policies or not is immaterial to the actual cases put in front of them, and they're constrained by that sort of activity.

Does it expose a potential flaw in judicial review?  Absolutely.  But there's no reason to believe, at this point in time, that SCOTUS is looking toward junking any particular constitutional language or textual concepts.  Nothing in the opinions we have up to this point indicates as much.

ClockOfTheLongNow

“Lately, the Supreme Court has issued a couple rulings that I think are absolutely insane in reference to the Trump admin and their challenging of the constitutional protections granted to people in the United States. 1) The ruling to pause all injunctions on Trump deporting people to foreign countries without allowing them to contest, 2) The pause on the injunction against birthright citizenship.”

I think you missed the points of these rulings. The arguments made and decided in the Supreme Court were whether or not nationwide injunctions are unconstitutional. They made no decision regarding the merits of Trumps executive orders.

[deleted]

&gt;convince me that this isn't the Supreme Court taking an anti-constitutional approach to rulings 

The sole function  of the SCOTUS is to interpret the constitution.  Since it is literally their job to determine what the constitution means, they, by definition,  cannot be "anti-constitutional" if they are the ones tasked with defining it.   

You might not agree with their rulings.  You might think the constitution means something other than what their interpretation is, but interpreting something differently doesn't make you "anti- that thing".

Stereo_Jungle_Child

“
Both of those appear to be pretty obviously ingrained in the constitution”

No not at all

33ITM420

Just to note: Obama did something similar, when he deported people without letting them contest (i.e., without due process). 

Anyway, the 14th Amendment heavily uses the word "State" and "States" when discussing laws that would impact the citizenship or rights of a person. Now, in the **most literal reading**, that would mean the individual States, not the Federal Gov't. Thus the President could do whatever he wants **according to the 14th Amendment with the most literal reading.** (This is of course false, as the 5th Amendment stops the Federal Gov't from doing anything to a person without due process.) 

The 14th Amendment does say whoever is born in the US is a citizen. You are looking at the 5th Amendment for the law on the Federal Gov't and due process with a literal interpretation of the Constitution, tho.    

Nationwide injunctions are bad, too. It gives the Federal Court system WAAAY too much power. Essentially, if I can find a Federal Judge who does not like a law or executive order that increases tariffs on imported Honda cars (for example), I can sue the US Gov't and have said Judge rule an Universal (Nationwide) Injunction that halts it indefinitely, but also says that the Gov't can not increase tariffs on any imported good. This injunction will stay until another federal court will overrule it, which can take years. Now, the Supreme Court allows injunctions, but they have to be within the scope of the challenged law.

RedHead-Eng25

I think the fact that you’re a never trumper has blinded you to what actually is happening with the rulings. 

EnderOfHope

A bit of a misrepresentation here, maybe you should read the opinions and you can understand why you are wrong.  😉

Change_username2

If one local federal judge, of which there are hundreds is capable of stopping the nationwide policy of the president, you can simply shop around for a sympathetic judge and stop literally anything the president does.  It really wasnt a thing that was done until the 1960s and 1970s and has had plenty of people raising eyebrows the entire time.

Judges are supposed to rule on the case in front of them and inside of their jurisdiction.  For nationwide things we have a supreme court that can and does hear emergency cases quickly when needed.  Nothing was lost but the ability to "Judge shop" and stop any regulation or policy you want at will.

Potential_Wish4943

You claim that one of your core values is that the Constitution has to stand to the letter. Do you extend this to the absolutist position of the 2nd Amendment? That biological and nuclear weapons are protected? I just want to see how far this core value extends.

anoncop4041

You claim to care about how the individual amendments were written so explain to me how Abraham Lincoln allowed the 14th amendment to be written expressly for illegal aliens to dump their babies into this country. Was that the purpose of the 14th amendment? No. Nobody back then was in favor of illegal immigration. The 14th amendment had the expressed purpose of freeing the slaves and treating them equally just like anyone else in this country.

Mental-Cupcake9750

Did you read the opinion of the court for either of these cases? If you want to challenge your view you could start by actually reading the argument.

Overtons_Window

I disagree on the grounds that I believe the militarization within our borders is more dangerous, and Trump doesn't need the courts for that. The reconciliation bill that just passed includes over [$100 billion in additional ICE funding](https://time.com/7299360/big-beautiful-bill-trump-ice-immigration/) In fact, the amount of money they get is enough to effectively create the third largest military on the planet, and they are deployed exclusively within our borders. Their budget will be larger than the Russian military, who is currently prosecuting a war against another nation. 

[They're already being forced upon states that don't want them there](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-07/masking-of-federal-agents-very-dangerous-and-perfectly-legal) by the party of "states rights". They're behaving as unaccountable jackboots, wearing masks and terrorizing [citizens and noncitizens alike](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/27/california-home-raid-huntington-park). This will only get worse as they quickly add additional poorly trained, unaccountable people who refuse to identify themselves. 

For Trump's part, he's threatening to use the force of the state to [rid himself of political enemies](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-threatens-arrest-mamdani-nyc-ice/story?id=123382676). After years of claiming their policies aren't racist, but that they just "want people to come here the right way", they are now trying to change what that means so they can deport more people. They're [attempting to end birthright citizenship](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c983g6zpz28o).  They want to begin [denaturalizing people](https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/immigration-ice-trump-denaturalization-20421967.php). They're [revoking visas](https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/19/us/visa-revoked-students-trump-ice). It seems very much like discrimination is the point. 

The Big Beautiful Bill calls for more immigration prisons to be built, like the so-called Alligator Alcatraz, [built quickly and cheaply](https://news.sky.com/story/eight-day-build-of-alligator-alcatraz-sparks-safety-concerns-as-hurricane-season-looms-13393669), which will be [unsafe and inhumane](https://www.newsweek.com/alligator-alcatraz-flooded-opening-day-donald-trump-migrant-detention-center-2093581). 

. [Here's Trump sycophant Laura Loomer just plainly saying she wants all Latinos imprisoned in places like this or dead.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/laura-loomer-alcatraz-alligator-lives-matter-trump-b2782150.html) And while she isn't a part of the administration, it begs the question - if this isn't the plan, why are they finding the infrastructure to do it in the first place? 

The fact is, this is the playbook of fascists. I'm not using that term derogatorily, but as a literal accounting of how fascism operates. There's always some outgroup that is propagandized to be the villain, with ultranationalism and keeping the country safe from these people at its center. There's always increased militarization and targeting of that group. And there are always escalations. 

And crucially, the problem can never be "solved". Once the "criminals" are expelled, you have to move onto someone new, like visa holders who speak out at student protests. Or naturalized citizens. Or birthright citizens. When you get those folks, it will be someone else. Because the regime can't stop harming these groups. Its power was built upon making its base afraid of them. Once they're gone, so is the fear. Then people might start looking at how many rights they gave up to get to that point and want some of those back. And before you know, your power is collapsing alongside the fear you had created. So the fear has to remain, which means targeting more people. It becomes ethnic cleansing and Holocaust pretty quickly. 

And while the courts can sometimes halt this, once a tyrant has a loyal, armed military deployed within their borders, all that can legally survive are kangaroo courts. What power will any court, even one that was unsympathetic to Trump (unlike what we have in SCOTUS)? 

Sorry, but we're already in far more dangerous territory than what the courts could even control.

Middle_Ad8183

I think you’re missing the rulings. 

It doesn’t say it can’t be challenged or that they are even ruling on the merits in any way. It’s saying you can’t just have broad national injunctions for everything and everyone everywhere. You can’t just stop an entire legitimate executive function across the country so broadly because of the manner and means in a single case and apply it to every exercise of that power across the country. Standing and article 3 were the crux of it IIRC. 

It’s a pretty broad and technical area of long standing jurisprudence I won’t bore you with, but if it wasn’t something as polarizing as birthright citizenship, I don’t think there would be any question about it.


ETA:
Imagine something simpler. 
X is paying people to march down streets with megaphones and blocking employees at military defense manufacturing facilities from getting to work
Trump stops it (assume it’s not a state issue and it’s a federal issue, etc) because it’s disruptive, excessive, national security etc. 

X files an injunction nationwide injunction that you can’t stop protesters with megaphones due to free speech. 

You just can’t do that. Each instance needs its own case. Of course, you can apply the rulings/opinion from the one case to resolve the other ones, but you can’t just wrap up use of the legitimate power across the country into one injunction.


Keep in mind, injunctions are NOT a ruling on the merits. They are a pause button until the case is decided on the merits. So it’s very likely that birthright citizenship is sustained (imo) but the nationwide injunction fails.

Lawineer

I'll start with the easy one, Part B. SCOTUS clearly clarified this back in 2019. Specifically regarding due process for illegal immigrants. It's amazing how people like you love to take bits and pieces of things while ignoring the rest of the issue.

The 14th is trickier. I do think you have to look at some version of intent. And it was clearly not the intent of those who ratified the 14th Amendment to allow millions of people to enter the country illegally, give birth and then be rewarded with citizenship and "anchored" here.

If you truly believe in literal interpretations of the Constitution, then you have to be in favor of tanks and nukes being available to private citizens. Because there is no restriction on "arms" in the 2nd.

marks1995

I love how anytime the Republicans get a court win, you call it a violation of the constitution, and yet when the Democrats do, you say there's no way they could do the same, or insist that the Constitution is a "living breathing document."

You flip the goal posts depending on how much you like the party in question.

Jaded_Jerry

I can change your mind on one thing:
“So I am a never Trump Republican.”

So…you are actually a democrat.

FlyAU98

If people did not challenge the constitutionality of some laws, we would still have slavery

Analyst-Effective

That’s not how it works.

You can’t “challenge the constitution.”

What you can do is ask the supreme court to interpret the constitution’s meaning and intent relative to a specific case.

The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret what the law is, not what the law should be.

SmarterThanCornPop

If you are following the Constitution to the letter, how is SCOTUS wrong by holding that a District Court cannot enjoin something that goes beyond the case or controversy before the Court?

And the Birthright Citizenship issue is not as clear as most on the left claim.  Trump's Executive Order was carefully written to comport with the historical understanding of the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.  By its plain terms, the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship at birth for any U.S. subject before on U.S. soil.  It doesn't grant birthright citizenship to non-U.S. subjects born on U.S. soil.  So the question is:  Is the child of an illegal immigrant born on U.S. soil a U.S. subject?  The historical record is not 100% clear on that issue because illegal immigration did not exist when 14A was ratified, but the record indicates strongly that a temporary victory or someone who enters unlawfully is not a U.S. subject.  

So if your argument is we need to follow the text of the Constitution, that includes the pivotal phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

&gt;The premise that the president may be able to act in defiance of a literalist constitution without a judicial check is probably the most concerning development in my lifetime.....

There is a check.  But you are advocating we strip the President of the powers granted to him in the Constitution, and instead have Courts usurp his power.  The President's job is to faithfully execute the laws.  That is what he is doing.  If you think the President is violating the law, your remedy is with the Courts.  And some people have claimed that and sued, and many of those people have an injunction preventing the law being enforced against them.

&gt;convince me that the due process statement in the constitution doesn't apply to all people in the US (this specifically doesn't say citizens)

It does apply to all people, and all people are getting due process.  Who do you think is being due process?

CalLaw2023

I get the concern, but the idea that this is some new constitutional crisis ignores decades—if not centuries—of constitutional erosion by both parties and all branches of government. Let’s talk real-world precedent:
Wartime overreach? Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War without congressional approval. FDR interned over 100,000 Japanese Americans during WWII—explicitly violating the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld it in Korematsu v. United States.
Vietnam and Iraq Wars? Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war since 1942, yet we’ve fought countless wars—from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq—on the basis of executive orders or vague Authorizations for Use of Military Force. Article I, Section 8 be damned.
Domestic surveillance? The Fourth Amendment promises protection from unreasonable searches, yet the NSA engaged in warrantless mass surveillance of Americans after 9/11. Programs like PRISM and XKeyscore were only exposed thanks to whistleblowers.
Torture and indefinite detention? The Bush administration authorized torture (“enhanced interrogation”), detained people at Guantanamo Bay without trial for decades, and used legal justifications that shredded both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
Presidential overreach? Obama used executive orders aggressively, including DACA and drone strikes in countries we weren’t at war with—actions that many constitutional scholars criticized. Trump took it further, declaring fake national emergencies to redirect funding and ignoring congressional oversight.
Police militarization and civil liberties? The militarized police response to BLM protests—tear gas, mass arrests, and curfews—trampled First and Fourth Amendment rights, often with bipartisan silence.
The Constitution hasn’t been defended consistently by any branch of government in decades. The Supreme Court isn’t the last firewall—it’s often part of the problem, upholding the Patriot Act, gerrymandering, Citizens United, and more. So no, this isn’t some new betrayal of strict constitutionalism—it’s just the latest chapter in a long-running saga of institutional failure.

It would seem to me that if one truly did respect the constitution, then they would respect the authority that the constitution vests in the scotus to determine what is and what is not constitutional.

The implication that the scotus is not capable or willing to properly interpret the constitutionality of the president's challenges also implies that the constitution itself is flawed in vesting the scotus with such authority.

If anything, the scotus ruling in favor of Trump's challenges upholds the sanctity of the constitution, even if you disagree with those rulings.

The most dangerous thing would be for the scotus to not be ruling at all; but for so long as the scotus is making rulings, even if you disagree with them, that is de facto proof that both the president and the scotus are operating within the framework defined within the constitution.

So again, concerns about unconstitutional challenges would only be valid if those challenges did not receive judicial review.  Just because you don't agree with a judicial review does not mean that the constitution is being ignored, in the same way that just because I did not agree with the Diddy verdict that does not mean the judicial process was undermined.

Shadeylark

By default, the Supreme Court can not create law.  It interprets law via the constitution and statutory law.  So every context that the Supreme Court has been a non literal interpretation of the constitution, for example, there isn’t a law (or wasn’t at the time the case law was created) that says the police can’t beat and release you, it used to be a thing.  Then one day the Supreme Court said they interpret the constitution to say that’s not allowed.  Roe v Wade was another example of this, when it decided the supreme courts ruling was that Americans had a constitutional right to abortions.  Clearly they have now changed their mind on that, which shows it was a non literal interpretation.

The Supreme Court has, and always will have a partisan slant based on the current judges because opinions are a thing that exists that are different for every person.  Generally speaking they get things pretty spot on without much room to argue but if there’s an opinion that gets you worked up I encourage you to read the opinions first to understand why.  

I don’t really agree with this being something that exists, but they often refer to previous court opinions to justify new ones as a reason why “x” law must be interpreted in the way it is, instead of just interpreting the law as it’s read.  I’d imagine this is to avoid conflicts with their own opinion but I think it creates this overly convoluted system for anyone to actually “know” what’s lawful and what’s not.  Any complicated issue can be argued from multiple angles because there’s so many different laws, Supreme Court opinions, and appellate court binding opinions, etc

tjboss

The Constitution has been modified 27 times look that up

TeachPotential9523

Cj7Stroud

Lower court injunctions are not protected by the constitution. The country does not need some no name liberal blocking every action the president takes, or do we want to set that precedent and nothing will ever get done again

viti1470

The concept of the nationwide injunction is a very recent phenomenon. The idea that any federal judge anywhere can unilaterally block the execution of any federal policy across the entire country is outrageously anti-democratic, and it is not how our country was designed to function.

Ideologically, the dissenting justices believe it is a judge's responsibility to decide every individual case subjectively. With that approach, there would effectively be no more laws.

On the merits of birthright citizenship, it's important to note that while you may be a textual literalist, many of the justices are originalists. That means they will dig deep into historical documentation to determine exactly what the legislators meant when they were writing the constitutional amendment. The meaning of words changes; what the legislators meant when they put pen to paper does not. In this case, they determined that it is not clear and obvious that the original legislators intended birthright citizenship to extend to anchor babies, so they will allow challenges to that law to proceed while the policy stays in effect.

&gt;convince me that this isn't the Supreme Court taking an anti-constitutional approach to rulings and that the core document of our republic is still being respected by the highest court.

*As dictated by the Constitution*, it is the Supreme Court that decides what is and is not legally permissible under the Constitution, not you. That you disagree with their rulings is besides the point. They are the ones entrusted by the Constitution with interpreting itself, therefore, to reject or defy their rulings is to reject and defy the Constitution.

The Constitution was not written so as to include only things you personally agree with. It was designed to change and adopt to future circumstances in precisely the way that it is doing now. I understand that you may find those changes worrying, but it is not in any way a betrayal of the document that it is being interpreted differently in different circumstances. That is a feature of the system, not a bug.

CaptCynicalPants

So what do you suggest that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means literally, as per the written word?

There have been numerous Supreme Court cases on this with various outcomes - including SC ruling where people born in the USA were not automatically deemed US citizens.  It is well known, understood and accepted that a diplomat from another country working in the USA and giving birth to a child in the USA - that said child born in the USA is not entitled to USA citizenship.  Because it is well recognized that that the child's parents were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", yes, they were physically in the USA, but not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Most of the alternative claims aren't so much based on the written word, but on tradition (or what has been in practice).  Well, if that is the the requisite - practice vs. language - explicitly following the written words is not the method that has been pursued.  And we can talk about all sorts of historical norms that were in practice for longer periods of time that the Supreme Court ruled were not in accordance with being Constitutional.

Because there are sound arguments on both sides of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually means legally, the simple idea of the "letter of the law" approach that you proclaim is somehow clear is not accurate - there is NO clear agreement as to what the letter of the law stipulates. Furthermore, the idea behind the Constitution is that it is NOT perceived and applied over time as per the "letter of the law" approach.  And many would say this is exactly why it is such a brilliant document or Constitution.  And generally, we Americans believe this - except when the Supreme Court rules on something in a manner that we don't ideologically like with regards frequently to the people, individuals or institutions involved in the Supreme Court case.

And we even see this partisanship going on within the Supreme Court - where a single justice can issue their vote or ruling on a same/similar topic in one instance and then they change their ruling on the same/similar topic on another case - with the real only differences being who is involved in the cases or which ideology is pushing for the ruling.

Having worked for politicians of both parties (many, many years/decades ago) and having been tasked with writing legislation, the "letter of the law" is more often a cause for problems than it is a remedy for clarity.  

Take for example the term marriage as written into our nations or State's laws for well over a hundred years:  the legal definition of marriage in the US was generally understood (and written) as the union of one man and one woman, a definition that was widely accepted and enforced by law and societal norms. 

In that instance, with the "letter of the law" approach you promote, same sex marriage would still be illegal or not recognized as a legal marriage.  It was only thru a Supreme Court ruling that this changed - contrary to your promoted and suggested practice on only considering the written word (it was largely only after the SC ruling that laws identifying the definition of marriage changed nationally) and with regard to Federal Laws and regulations. I use this example because it is within many people's memories and a topic that most adult American's are at least familiar with.

generallydisagree

First of all, The Supreme Court did not pause the injunction against birthright citizenship - it ruled that federal district courts lacked authority to issue universal injunctions blocking enforcement of federal policies. Federal courts can still block the implementation of Trump's executive order for the specific individuals and organizations challenging it.

Secondly, you never explained why you believe the Supreme Court allowing trump to challenge the constitution is "the most Dangerous thing Happening Right Now."

Third; 

"The premise that the president may be able to act in defiance of a literalist constitution without a judicial check is probably the most concerning development in my lifetime"

This is not what is happening - the cases are being heard by the court, which is the judicial "check." That you or anyone else may not like the court's rulings in any given case does not mean that the judicial check is not there. 

Also;

*"I'd like someone to either A) convince me that the fourteenth amendment doesn't actually grant birthright citizenship, convince me that the due process statement in the constitution doesn't apply to all people in the US (this specifically doesn't say citizens), or B) convince me that this isn't the Supreme Court taking an anti-constitutional approach to rulings and that the core document of our republic is still being respected by the highest court."*

Whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment actually grants birthright citizenship or the due process statement in the constitution applies to all people in the US or the Supreme Court is taking an anti-constitutional approach to rulings and that the core document of our republic is still being respected by the highest court are not what the view stated in your title is about. The view stated in your title is about whether what you perceive the supreme court is doing with regard to the cases you mention is "the most Dangerous thing Happening Right Now." Clearly you believe that the protections you talk about in this post are important and the "danger" you speak of in regard to them is their not existing.  If we convince you that they actually do not exist, how does that convince you that the legal challenge that may rule them as non-existent is not "the most Dangerous thing Happening Right Now"? Even if we convince you of that, you are not the Supreme Court so nothing actually changes with regard to the Constitution or any laws.  Everything remains as it is until any ruling that changes them happens, no matter what you believe or what we convince you of regarding the constitution.

horshack_test

Why would you like your views changed in the way you are suggesting? Are there other areas that you are open to changing your view on?

As a preface towards some other areas - how long ago do you feel the last time the constitution was respected by the Supreme Court? What do you believe the catalysts for this new disregard for the constitution are? When did the Supreme Court begin disregarding the constitution? What individuals on the court, if any, do the best job of respecting it now?

Do you believe this is isolated, or if this represents a coordinated action to destabilize the checks and balances put forth in the constitution?

Who do you think the attack on Birthright citizenship is meant to target? What do you feel are the potential consequences of granting the government the authority to remove the citizenship of natural born citizens?  Could that bear any relevance to the attempt to deny Due Process for noncitizens? Is there an alternative firm standard for citizenship that is being put forth? As an example, I am a white male, natural born US citizen. My parents were natural born citizens. Their parents were natural born citizens. So were their parents. To begin finding a naturalized citizen in my family tree, you need to look at my great great grandparents.

But I am quite politically opposed to the current administration. What standard put forth prevents the government, if the existing plans are enacted successfully, from revoking my citizenship and deporting me to an El Salvadorian prison? Currently, 86.9% of the people in the US are natural born citizens. 6% are naturalized citizens, and 7.1% are non-citizens of one type or another. That means that 93.5% of citizens get their citizenship from the Birthright protections of the 14th amendment. Do you believe it coincence that the government has been ramping up denaturalization talk for naturalized citizens, and arguing to be able to remove natural born citizenship based on little more than the convenience and pleasure of whatever the current citizenship are? Especially given that the right to vote is controlled by citizenship.

What Court cases have strengthened these degradations of the constitutional rights of all our citizens? Which justices supported these Court cases? What do those justices have in common?

Talik1978

The problem is the point the Supreme Court had to deal with on nationwide injunctions is that the Supreme Court is limited to cases or controversies. And people who were covered by these nationwide injunctions are neither in a case nor a controversy. I’d be willing to look the other way, but the conservatives were not.

More-Dot346

There's no such thing as a "never Trump" Republican anymore. Because the entirety of the Republican Party is in lockstep. If you support Republicans, you support Trump.

Peaceable_Pa

How do you reconcile the clearly vested authority over all immigration issues resting with the President?

Democrats and Republicans alike have decried nationwide injunctions for years because it allows plaintiffs to judge shop for a favorable outcome, and it works quite well.

No one is being denied Due Process, the overturn was in relation to nation wide injunctions.  The due process required for a Civil violation is much different than a criminal violation.  Most of the people being deported have not contested they are here illegally and are thus remanded to custody and deported.

Even if the above is true, how do you reconcile the legislative restriction placed on other Amendments that have been ruled constitutional, primarily the 2nd Amendment.

  
Further, the left routinely sues over laws under the stance that the frame of mind of the those who passed the law matters.  This has primarily been used to overturn voter ID requirements with courts finding the lawmakers may have had a discriminatory mindset at the time of passage, even if there is nothing discriminatory in the law.  If this is the case then certainly the mindset of those who passed the 14th Amendment should be considered, as their intent was to address the residency of former slaves and their children, not an anchor baby tourism.

RiverCityWoodwork

That’s not what the supreme court said. The Supreme Court said that district level federal can’t just block executive orders.

To challenge something as actually unconstitutional, the correct remedy is now to have a state government sue the office of POTUS, in which case the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction and could rule on whether or not the order in question is unconstitutional.

It really is unprofessional for liberal NGOs to use unelected district level judges to block executive orders that they don’t like. In the past, there was an honors system where federal judges voluntarily stayed out of politics unless there was an ACTUAL legal/constitutional issue. Unfortunately some judges haven’t been living up to that expectation and working with liberal NGOs and abusing their positions to block policies they don’t like. Hence why this is needed. 

I’ll admit that the birthright citizenship suspension is unconstitutional. But that’s NOT what the Supreme Court ACTUALLY said. It’s extremely intellectually dishonest to portray the Supreme Court as affirming an unconstitutional order when they’re really just trying to uphold legal ethics.

chloeandvegas

I’m gonna need to catch up on the deportation case. I’m not thrilled by our new policies on immigration and deportation, but I do accept that if that’s the road we are going down there are tons of logistical pitfalls for the administration. A notable one is where you want to deport criminals (paroles, probationers) where innocence isn’t really a factor and somewhere like Uganda says, we don’t want that bad actor back. So now bad actor X lives in the US and is effectively immune from deportation unless we ship him somewhere he doesn’t want to be. 

It sounds like someone in the Trump administration asked an intern to make a list of the 10 worst places on earth, and they are trying to deport people there. 

Need to read that case, and I don’t know what to think of the whole mess at this point. As far as immigration is concerned, dealing with criminal bad actors should be far more palatable to the public than rounding up otherwise law abiding tax payers but every action is being litigated this year.

Bamalawdawg

That, in fact, is the positive litmus test proving that SCOTUS is no longer the Constitutional referee it is supposed to be.

There are two kinds of judges:
Conservative Letter of the Law judges and Liberal Spirit of the Law judges. 

Politically conservative judges tend to be judicially conservative and Politically liberal judges tend to be judicially liberal.  But these are not the same things. And when a Politically conservative judge rules pro-Democrat, it is usually for judicially conservative reasons. 

But there's no judicially  conservative reason for SCOTUS to keep letting POTUS ignore or gobble up more power.  And there's no judicially liberal reason that exists for them to let him do it, either.  The only reason that exists is if the politically conservative Justices want to promote the Republican Party's goals. 

In which case, SCOTUS is no longer serving it's purpose of referee over POTUS and Congress.

haluura

Never trump Republicans are almost worse than trumpers. 

WeasleHorse

I’m a Democrat but do believe that SCOTUS ruled correctly in limiting the power in lower courts to make national injunctions. SCOTUS wasn’t ruling on birth right citizenship but on the scope of lower court rulings. The President’s executive order will likely be found as unconstitutional but that is for the SCOTUS to decide. I can imagine a lower court in some region ruling abortion ought be illegal everywhere. Most wouldn’t want that universally applied while the case goes through the courts. 

This case has been reported in the black and white perspective of a win or lose for President Trump and rarely regarding what it actually does. I don’t care if it’s called a win for Trump, I want lower courts checked and balanced  just like I want the Executive Branch checked and balanced. 

ezk3626

SCOTUS has gone off the rails. It’s been a partisan joke for at least 30 years, but it’s getting bad. Bush v Gore was a joke - they just gave the presidency to Bush for no good reason, but with Trump v CASA, they basically said constitutional rights only exist for each person to the extent they have a district court order SPECIFIC to them that grants them such a right. It’s an absolute abomination and clearly just shows they will give Trump anything he wants. Imagine if the executive order in Trump v CASA were an order by Biden that Republicans aren’t allowed to vote, or that any Republican in office on Jan 6, 2021 was immediately kicked out of office. There’s no question SCOTUS would have upheld universal injunctions to block those actions (even though the latter one has more constitutional justification than Trump’s EO against birthright citizenship).

theaccount91

The crazy part to me is the utter shortsightedness of it all. If the court were to ever swing liberal. Or more likely congress or the presidency then those same rulings would apply and thus allow a liberal leaning entity to exert their will on a whim. This is complete chaos to our political system. Conservative scholars in the US have historically been reluctant to cross lines they didn’t want to have crossed over them. 

Now they seem to be moving as though an adversarial approach could never be true. It’s baffling to me. The pendulum always swings. Are modern conservatives truly assuming we will never have a moderate or liberal leaning president again?

This is probably only entrenching your view tho. Sorry.

king_Seth

All presidents and congress have challenged the constitution. Every law, every EO every policy is a challenge to the constitution that’s how a government of 3 equal branches functions. We are almost 250 years into a document that has been interpreted, reinterpreted and misinterpreted the entire time. Biden wanted to give away (forgive)billions in student loan debt. You don’t loan people money with a repayment plan then turn around and say never mind . Judges jump the curb on a ruling, higher judges out them back in their lane. Who’s job is it to protect federal property? A lot of folks, and o e is the guard, whether that state’s Governor likes it or not.

pirate40plus

It is absolutely not the case that SCOTUS justices have always stuck as close to the letter of the law as possible. For one, that suggests they are not really interpreting the law so much as stating objective fact about how the law was intended to be structured, which is not the case. Secondly, there have been many occasions where it has been valid if not morally necessary to violate the Constitution. To help a slave escape from bondage illegally, for example, was Unconstititional per the SCOTUS and essentially seen as theft. 


All that said, we are in agreement that the SCOTUS effectively revising the Constitution to suit Trump is extremely dangerous.

3WeeksEarlier

You’re panicking over routine judicial procedure without understanding how the Court actually works. Granting a stay is not a ruling on the merits, it’s standard when the justices need more time to review complex constitutional issues. The Court has paused plenty of injunctions before, under Obama and Bush too. No one is tossing out the Fourteenth Amendment or due process, and no ruling has declared otherwise. You’re twisting temporary pauses into some anti constitutional conspiracy when in reality this is just how high court review functions. Calm down and wait for an actual decision before declaring the republic dead.

acesoverking

The 14th Amendment literally says "All persons born... are citizens." And due process? That's for everyone, not just citizens. This isn't some deep legal debate, it's pretty plain language. Allowing the exec branch to just ignore that, even temporarily, is like watching someone play Jenga with the foundation of the house.

poutypetitegf

The conservative movement is and always has been a project to preserve and entrench the oligarchy of the 1%. All the talk of "originalism" is and always has been a smokescreen for packing the courts with people that, in reality, are committed to no principle except letting the rich do whatever they want. Everything else is just how they trick enough people to vote for them to enact their agenda, because otherwise anyone with half a brain would be able to see how they'd be better off with the Democrats. This is what Republicans have wanted all along.

MorganWick

I don’t think the SCOTUS is being anti-constitutional, but Trump definitely is.

The SCOTUS ruling on injunctions makes sense. Just looking back on the Biden administration, we saw how right wing judges blocked Biden from doing real relief regarding student loans.

The issue is Trump is obviously abusing his power with an unconstitutional order. The court will more than likely need to rule on the order itself soon, as 22 states have sued over it.

Kaleb_Bunt

Their method is that the fighting the case in Tribunal will cost you more time, headache and even money than just paying their fine with interest/penalty.

Basically only people taking them to Tribunal is usually to get a clarification/precedence ruling of how the law is applied so they can continue the business practice they had been doing before the Tax officials erroneously claimed it to be unlawful.

sidvicc

&gt;This is not tax collection; it is tax terrorism and extortion.

https://preview.redd.it/dp30xridhwaf1.jpeg?width=1290&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=cf1acc6eeb74c3c991fe90ac1c1825f584940464

find_a_rare_uuid

This is the reason my family literally stays away from any business that can be tracked easily by these incompetent bastards. Preferably staying in the businesses which they dare not touch.

They don’t have much choice. Imagine you are an upright officer and decide on the merit that there is no point filing an appeal in a matter. You will be accused of corruption, given low performance rating and most likely face a transfer. 

So to play it safe, officers will mindlessly keep filing appeal. It’s not as if they have to pay from their pocket for legal cost. The demand is kept live in the system and the officers get promoted and rewarded. The tax payer was born to suffer anyway so doesn’t matter much.

SaracasticByte

unless tax demand is at least 10L, there is no point in fighting 2 rounds of litigation.. fees &amp; other costs (not bribe) are a hindrance plus time consuming &amp; then in interim, govt keeps adjusting refunds of other years &amp; keeps pressure for recovery  
&amp; then when Govt loses, they do not issue refunds, you have to do another round of harassments

a common man wants to avoid this, so, he pays up.. business class understands this game &amp; is prepared to save a hit on profit

iamaxelrod

Fighting 2 service tax cases, both from 2014 and 2015.

First case is an evasion case. Facts are that my CA advised us to file nil returns and pay up entire owed tax approx 3 months later, since we were facing a cash crunch. So we did. Now they claim that filing a nil return amounts to evasion, and 100% of the owed tax will be penalty + interest on that. How is it evasion if we files accurate returns and paid it 3 months after it being due? 

Second case is another evasion case from a year before that (2014). They’re claiming we evaded 86k worth of service tax, since our ITR and ST3 didn’t match. This is the year my startup was incorporated. Which means service tax registration occurred only after crossing a threshold. I was 22 years old with a bad CA (who is now absconding). Of the 86k they’re saying I’ve evaded, 45k is being calculated on export of services. My bank isn’t giving me FIRC for those exports since it’s been over ten years. And commissioner isn’t accepting bank statements and invoice as proof of export.

They know that they’re simply creating anxiety. 

Btw, I’ve paid service tax and gst totaling at least 80-100 lakh over the past decade. But sure, make me run around courts for less than 0.5% error.

Rararasputin92

Actually, they lose more than 95% of the cases.

TheCryptoCA

The new recipe to evade tax is by 'investing' in foreign  Countries like Ghana, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, Brazil and Namibia.... when you earn enough money and don't want to pay taxes , migrate to dubai after acting in shityy films about riots .

Logical_slayer1977

Another point that perhaps require mentioning is the 20% pre-deposit (refundable) of the tax demand that the assessee has to pay in advance to appeal against the case. It takes quite a long time for the appeal process to go through, during which time a substantial amount of money is in the hands of the Department which who knows they use it for.

Trailtaz

The analysis has a logical fallacy:



Before we make the assertion you've made - we'll also need to know many of these notices result in a case before a tribunall court.

What if only 10 of our 100 reach that stage? And 90 people settle without going to court? (I suspect most of these 90, know their fishy tricks have been caught and just pay the fine)


Then the win rate for the notices would be about 93% (90 that didn't go to court + the 3 out of 10 they won in court)

ApurvArora12

It's an IRS exam which picks these useless tax officers.
IRS officers spend 5-6 years studying history, to make the future of other people bad.

SanjuRai1986

Instead of individually fighting, should ppl join forces and fight the unfair IT system collectively? 

It will save time and money when the demand is of similar nature

OG-AnkitG

Welcome to Vivad se vishwas were every one thinks they are getting of easy by just paying the tax but the tax itself is an high pitched assessment

Hot_Will1997

gautam1857

Exciting_Strike5598

This is a populist post that will get lots of likes but does not reflect reality. 

Firstly, only around 1% of returns face scrutiny assessments. Even out of those, the majority of cases do not result in additions. I and my family  members have faced several assessments and notices, and in only one case was an addition made because a family member's CA had made some errors and the assessment notices were not properly responded to. However, the AO's demand was set aside by the CIT(A) when the facts were properly presented. 

The Income Tax Department has monetary limits on disputed income below which it would not appeal further. For example, a case involving less than 60 lakh in escaped income will not be appealed to ITAT, less than 2 crores will not be appealed to High Courts will not be appealed to High Courts and less than 5 crores will not be appealed to the Supreme Court. So, while the assessee has the option to keep on appealing, ITD, in most cases, cannot appeal if it loses at any stage.

With a few exceptions, assessments are done fairly since all communication is electronic and records are preserved. High pitched assessments that are later thrown out are considered negatively against the officers making them because of the wastage of government resources.

However, even the most honest and public spirited officer  can make an assessment based solely on the information provided to him. Most people who complain either engaged in tax evasion and were caught or did not properly represent their case. Yes , it seems unfair to those who are not aware of the law and are not able to get competent representation, but the alternative is no scrutiny and allowing unfettered tax evasion. One should also remember that only a very small proportion of people ever face an assessment and only when something suspicious gets flagged in their return.

Fantastic-Fan-7523

they lose becoz tribunals are not faceless and we know how honest our citizens and officials are

That is because 
The one's who could be losing have already settled at the demand level itself 
And cases are only preferred by people who know they are right and can fight back
Don't tell me you believe Indian businessmen are not tax chor 
No businessmen I have come across says this is my actual income and here's the tax 
All are like ye depreciating asset ye fake receipts ye overinflated bills etc etc

Material_Card9554

Poelpe complain that non salaried class gets away with manipulating income &amp; paying less tax....but people also have issues when Tax department goes after them ??

This is India... you think businesses pay tax fairly ?

struggle-life2087

I have no hopes from the Supreme Court now. These RSS people are everywhere, trying to change the system from within. Quoting "Manu Smriti" like, it's their actual fucking CONSTITUTION. 


My only hope is from PEOPLE of INDIA.

No_Wrangler6297

The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which penalizes acts that endanger the nation's sovereignty.

Supreme Court Challenge to India's Section 152 Law

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want