Public sentiment regarding the Supreme Court's advisory opinion on governors' powers is predominantly critical, with widespread concerns over its implications for democracy, state governance, and the balance of power. Many view this ruling as a setback for democratic accountability and a dangerous overreach of executive power, fearing it allows for arbitrary delays in legislation and undermines the authority of state legislatures.

Supreme Court

Governors

State Legislatures

if it is a bill that could benefit the common people? then "no timelines for Governor/ President to act on bills"  
BUT if it is a bill that could benefit the rich elites and the politicians? passed overnight!

hudi_baba

Is there no logic, reasoning and consistency in law? Jo man kare wahi judgement do. Totally arbitrary.

modemrider

The interpretation of law changes with the whims and fancies of the prevailing Govt . 
Good job mee lardsss , u are truely a peeler of  Democracy .

Aggressive-Office301

RIP to federalism which was already in the ICU..

AAPkeMoohMe

GG to Tamil Nadu. R M Ravi is going to sit on all the Anti BJP bills till the CM brings it to court

Impossible_Raise2416

The President and the Court have given in to the whims of this government. Sad day for Indian democracy and federalism.

Bangers_n_Mashallah

It's over. The collapse is way more apparent now

Leo2000Immortal

I don't see how this and all the bs that is happening won't lead to a country's collapse. I mean, crony capitalism is one thing but removal of state rights and blatant corruption is going to piss people off sooner or later. Yes, you can blame CIA or some other foreign interference to fan the fires but the fires are there, and this is a very dangerous precedent. Recently tamil nadu government filed a case against the governor due to this same issue, the court verdict was different then, I wonder what changed.

RationalPsycho42

The Constitution should work for the common people, not for the convenience of those in power.

Everyone gets to live once; if people have to wait their entire lifetime for the government to do the bare minimum so they can just survive that life, then that’s a failure of the system. Fuck nationalism when the system wouldn’t work for the people.

dshivaraj

Good judgment i know people will come hating on it cause it is with the govt, however thats a sign of competent judiciary its independent in a sense when it can decide against but also in favour of the govt. 

Scared_Platform3756

Icy-Price-

Most of the state govt love to pass bills (especially on reservations) which they hope/pray that Supreme Court  strikes down or president sleeps on it. They make unnecessary promises to people and then are under pressure. I have not seen any decent law which was passed by state govt and the president rejected it.

ridersofthestorms

Look, you either think an 18 year old is an adult or you don't. If you trust an 18 year old to go to war then you should trust them to buy a handgun, simple as that. If you trust an 18 year old to go to war then they should be able to vape/drink/etc. 

US has some backwards ass laws honestly. Either 18 is an adult or you raise the age of everything to whatever X age you think is appropriate.

pgdevhd

See y'all in spring for the "cert denied" threads.

38CFRM21

I'm waiting to see what happens with High Cap Mag Ban and AWB

BadTiger85

Polar_Bear500

AmericanUpheaval357

I think a lot of these rulings are important but wouldn't be super impactful initially.

They really need to take some of the capacity restrictions or awb. My number one wishlist item would be for them to take up Duncan v bonta

caterham09

![gif](giphy|8YeRRk1FPx7fzBCR0U|downsized)

yourboibigsmoi808

Unfortunately, none of the current 2A cases they have granted cert won't really change much of anything. It will also affect a minority of people. It would be like me caring about the government messing with the age of tobacco or alcohol when I am well beyond the age of that even mattering to me at all whatsoever. 

SCOTUS needs to take the AWB and mag cap ban case. They have been kicking the can for a long time but those will make meaningful impact for today and the future of 2A.

Mark2CPlus

"Cert Denied, Cert Denied, Cert Denied"

 "We will look at the Assualt Weapons law at another conference, Cert Denied" 

"We dont believe the 2A is an actual right for all states and will continue to allow the 9th circuit to violate Bruen and Heller, ohh and Californias efforts redistrict are illegal while Texas is ok" 

Nothing. Ever. Happens. They dont care about the 2A.

alternative5

The Supreme Court’s 2025-26 term could be a turning point for the Second Amendment. Multiple cases are on the docket that will decide whether states and the federal government can keep restricting gun rights after Bruen. This is the moment for 2A supporters to pay attention and push back against creeping infringements.  

---

Here’s the breakdown from SCOTUSblog:

- Wolford v. Lopez (Hawaii law) – Hawaii wants gun owners to get express permission before carrying on private property open to the public. Challengers argue this is basically a backdoor ban on public carry, with no historical precedent. Oral arguments are set for Jan. 20, 2026.  
- United States v. Hemani (drug users &amp; firearms) – Federal law bans gun ownership for “habitual drug users.” Courts are split: some say it’s constitutional, others say the government must prove an actual threat. SCOTUS will hear this in early 2026.  
- 18–20-year-olds &amp; gun rights – Several petitions ask whether banning young adults from owning firearms violates the Second Amendment. Right now, it’s a patchwork: some states allow, others deny. SCOTUS will decide soon whether to take these cases.  
- Nonviolent felons &amp; gun ownership – Petitions challenge the federal ban on firearm possession for nonviolent offenders (like check fraud or vandalism). The question: does the Second Amendment protect them too?  
- AR-15s &amp; semi-auto rifles – Petitions are also coming that could force SCOTUS to decide whether the Second Amendment protects ownership of America’s most popular rifle platform.  

---

Why this matters:  
- Bruen (2022) set the standard: gun laws must align with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.  
- States like Hawaii are trying to sidestep Bruen with “sensitive places” laws that amount to near-total bans.  
- The Court’s rulings could either cement 2A protections nationwide or allow more carve-outs that weaken our rights.

MuchAd3273

What will likely happen, is: 

Federal overreach may be limited. Like the non violent Felons section. 

however, true to conservative form, states can do what ever they want. 

The issue is this: A state cant say you cannot own a gun at all. Thats constitutionally protected. BUT they can implement laws about permits, caliber, operation (semi vs manually actuated) and pretty much any restriction they want.  You can get a CCW sure… but you cant carry within…. Checks map…. 5 miles of a school, post office, state court house, business that serves or sells alcohol unless you are within the confines of your home, not your property, and NO ONE in the house is under 18,  or has a prescription for mental health medication, or is a user of any mind altering substance, including Nicotine, Alcohol, anything that contains THC.  

You can own a range gun, or target gun, No Semi Autos or single shot only, or if its a bolt action, lever action, pump action you are limited to 3 rounds ( or less) … with a background check, $150 annual permit PER firearm, mandatory safety classes (which i don’t necessarily disagree with), and all the aforementioned things above.  

Or it will become like japan, where you have to lock up your guns at the range, and they are only allowed to be kept there. 

ALL of this madness is within states right, because, if you CHOOSE to not smoke, take THC products, everyone is “healthy”, and you pay the permits, you are free to buy a single shot gun that has to be kept at the range. And they didn’t block you from buying a gun, therefore haven’t infringed your rights. 

Think about “free speech zones” at protests. They determine when and where you can excercise your 1st, anywhere else is trespassing, or disturbing the peace, or impeding traffic.   The free speech zones happens to be 3 miles from the event or person being protested.   But you CAN express your self and therefore the state did not infringe in your free speech. 

Now would a politician be able to pass a bill like this? No way.   But in theory, if they were stupid enough politically to try, and there was a super majority that didn’t care about ever getting elected again, they COULD do it.

moebiusgrip

Come what may, I will continue to do whatever the hell I damn please because the constitution didn’t stutter.

BlueOrb07

Im hopeful for the Hawaii case. Your free speech does the end at someone else's door by default. But they can tell you to leave.

I see SCOTUS striking down the ban by default, but saying that private property owners can ban carrying and the law can back them up, same as trespassing.

Marijuana Im less hopeful on, but it'll depend how they argue it.

18-20 bans are tricky. There is historical tradition that you weren't an adult until 21. Used to be you couldn't vote until 21, but an amendment changed that

AlphaTangoFoxtrt

ChrisLS8

CharleyVCU1988

Don't ban me but, in Bruen it specifically says “Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows for a variety of gun regulations"

AlfredoCustard

556_enjoyer

Remind me to stock up on my "Fell for it again" awards for everyone

KelpyGsus

If anyone here thinks the billionaire and his sycophants are going to protect the right of the have nots to rise up against the haves I’ve got a bridge to sell them.

il1k3c3r34l

Me meanwhile at 16 watching the entire nation start overthinking what the age of an adult is and potentially end up setting the adult age to above 18 making me end up having to wait a few extra years for me to exercise my god-given rights:

TheItsCornKid

While I am pro 2a, the age 18 vs 21 issue is not a big deal to me, as long as they don't try to go higher than 21, as 21 was the age of majority for many things when the 2a was written.

Penguin_Life_Now

Tell me about the drug user stuff more. I wouldn’t mind restricting fentanyl zombies

Coeruleus_

Namaskaram /u/Grumpykid283, Thank you for your submission. Please provide a source for the image / video (if not a direct link submission). We would really appreciate it if you could mention the source as a reply to this comment! If you have already provided the source or if it is an OC post, please ignore this message.  Thank you.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Off late Supreme Court had forgotten their responsibilities and started the habit of legislating. Their role is not to create laws but interpret them when there are ambiguities. This is a welcome opinion from the SC that effectively negates the prior two bench ruling which was an overreach.

cdit

Now states have to go to supreme court for individual bills which are withheld.. It is what it is, and the parliament wont change the law which would reduce its own power. Not just state govt is democratic, central govt is democratic too, so this cant be called as undemocratic

But it is a good thing, because many states like TN having leftist govts are passing separatist bills, like recent neet opt out bill by TN etc

criti_fin

It's a good judgment. The 2-judge bench was way out of line - deemed assent was a judicial coup. The courts should not circumvent democracy and the political process.

ididacannonball

It is the right thing to do. The farmer's of the Constitution put that power for some reason. 

For once, India is a Union of state with a federal structure of government. Union is made powerful for a reason. 

SC cannot change the constitution by setting up time limit that would be legislating. 

SC is only the interpreter of the constitution and adjudication body between Centre and state. It cannot change the constitution in what so way specially in the matters of Principals of Basic structure which it itself decreed decades ago. Moreover the rulling was by a 2 judge bench which was again unconstitutional.

This is a good step by drawing the line between the Legislature and the judiciary. If anything it's parliament which should have the final say on a matter of power.

Epsilon009

this is a really shitty ruling and essentially a pocket veto with no consequences and in direct conflict of the powers of legislature putting them at mercy of governors to do their job

Impossible-Gur-9803

President/governor are kind of valves to powers of legislature/government. Like, if legislature goes mad, there is atleast one constitutional valve that can hold it. Effectiveness can be debated, but still better than having unchecked power with legislature. 


For instance, Uddhav Thackeray had to be member of any house within 6mo of becoming CM. He was scared of even indirect elections and covid had also hit so he and his party were pushing for governor-nominated seat. But tenure of that seat was expiring in 6 months, so governor held it and instead co-ordinated with election commission and CG to hold legislative council elections. Had he not done that, same problem would've risen once again in 6mo (when covid had escalated). Thanks to him, Uddhav is still MLC. Ofc, part of these moves was politics, but practical effect was giving further stability to Uddhav as a CM, atleast he didn't have to resign for mere failure to get seat in legislature. 

JustGulabjamun

Judiciary can't do an over reach , it has no power to set or make legislative changes or orders all it can do is recommend

Orwellisright

What’s the point of having a state government then? Let centre control everything

AcanthocephalaNo5672

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written by /u/Okratas.

The California Supreme Court [upheld a law](https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S270535.PDF) that protects LGBTQ+ nursing home residents, arguing that penalizing employees for repeated misgendering is a regulation of discriminatory conduct, not protected speech. However, opponents argue that forcing an employee to use specific pronouns under the threat of civil fines or even criminal misdemeanor charges constitutes compelled speech, setting a dangerous precedent for government control over language.

Obviously everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, but how do you reconcile the progressive value of protecting marginalized communities from harassment with the liberal value of rigorously defending the First Amendment against government-mandated expression?

Does the government's threat of criminal penalty inherently make this an unconstitutional form of compelled speech regardless of the setting? 

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

No. They can misgender their patients as much as they want at home. It's totally reasonable that laws exist that regulate healthcare, and that those laws protect patients' dignity.

00Oo0o0OooO0

&gt; In addressing this question, we emphasize the narrow context in which the challenged statute operates. It
seeks to protect long-term care residents’ right to be free from
discrimination in a setting in which they constitute a “captive
audience” in what has become, in effect, each resident’s home.
The provision regulates conduct by staff persons whose job is to
provide and support medical treatment and intimate personal
care — thereby seeking to promote an environment conducive to
such treatment and care. It is carefully calibrated and does not
restrict long-term care facilities’ staff from expressing their
views about gender to anyone (including a resident) in any
otherwise lawful manner other than by misgendering a
resident — and even then, the prohibition is limited to willful,
repeated, knowing acts done because of a legally protected
characteristic. In light of this unique setting and scope, we
conclude that the provision should be analyzed, and upheld, as
a regulation of discriminatory conduct that incidentally affects
speech. It should not be subject to First Amendment scrutiny
as an abridgment of the freedom of speech. And even assuming
the statute were subject to intermediate scrutiny, we find the
provision easily satisfies that test.

I concur.

antizeus

Free speech means the government can't throw you in jail over fringe beliefs, but that doesn't mean you can't be barred from positions of professional trust because your beliefs are incompatible with that duty.

Also, pragmatically speaking, I was visiting my dad in hospice for his final weeks, and if anyone was deliberately disrespecting him over their own political bullshit I absolutely fucking would burn that place down (figuratively speaking) to get it fucking stopped. Anyone who does that shit in that setting is absolutely a massive shitbird.

throwdemawaaay

This law isn't about speech, it's about discrimination in a patient's own home. Because that's what a long-term care facility is, their home. Which makes this an issue of elder abuse.

If it applied in public spaces, or the speakers own home, there might be an issue. But we're talking about the *patient's* home. The power difference between a professional caregiver and the patient who is dependent on that care just makes it more severe. Nobody should be abused like that in their own home, and nobody should be allowed to do that abusing.

Those people are still free to speak hatefully in public, or in their own private spaces. That they are not free to do it in other people's private spaces is just protecting the freedom of the people that live there. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of my neighbor's nose, as the saying goes.

-Random_Lurker-

No. The safety of disabled people trumps some person's right to be an ass.

If some Christian dumbshit wants to misgender disabled people, they can do it on their own time,

Plus, if someone's willing to misgender a disabled LGBT person, they're likely going to escalate the behavior when they think nobody is looking. Bigots always escalate when nobody's watching.

And it's VERY often the case that nobody is watching the nursing homes. Best to make the bigots find other work.

ManufacturerThis7741

I think it's depressing that this even has to be a law for people to just treat one another with respect. I think it's probably something better handled by the nursing home disciplining their employees but maybe there needs to be a bigger stick.

You shouldn't be allowed to verbally assault or demean someone that you are a nurse or care worker for. Period. Hospital patients and the elderly are vulnerable and deserve respect and dignity by those entrusted to take care of them. I have no problem with that being a law.

formerfawn

Probably yes, but just to play it out a bit..  I wonder what the arguments are on how this differs from criminalizing something like sexual harassment.  Do unwelcome verbal comments of a sexual nature differ meaningfully from unwelcome verbal comments of a 'gender' nature, particularly when both create a hostile environment in a workplace/home environment?  Is the suggestion now that any such protection for long term care residents cannot survive a First Amendment challenge?  If care workers cannot be forced to use preferred names, can they also not be forced to not use derogatory names?  Can a long term care worker routinely call someone "Mr Fat Fuck" and be shielded by the Constitution from any repercussion?

CTR555

It's not a free speech issue. I can't be a bigot to anyone and hope to keep my job, and it's hardly controversial to expect the same of anyone else.

Sir_Tmotts_III

I do not think it should be a criminal offense, it should lead to dismissal from employment

MachiavelliSJ

Are caregivers allowed to use racial slurs or cuss at their patients?

bellegroves

Here’s my two cents:

I don’t think it should necessarily be a criminal offense, but I definitely don’t think it should be protected that speech that you can’t get fired from your job over. If you’re misgendering residents constantly (Which I would argue is harassment) you should be able to be fired.

Fresh3rThanU

I would think that repeatedly calling a vulnerable person under your care something like sinful or a liar would constitute verbal abuse. At the very least, it should get you fired. But given that it's psychological abuse of a vulnerable person, there's a fair case to be made that it's a criminal offense. 

Misgendering someone is also verbal abuse. The negative health effects of doing this to trans people are well documented. Plus, refusing to use their preferred gender is calling them sinful and liars. So it's abuse of someone in whose best interests you have a legal duty to act. 

So yeah, misgendering people whom it's your job to care for should be punished. I'm a huge fan of the First Amendment, but every amendment has, or should have, limits where the exercise of that right does actual damage to other people.

mesarasa

Yes but if the companies/hospitals employing these small minded people fire them then those companies/hospitals shouldn't be punished

Capital-Giraffe-4122

If you literally cant show basic respect to the people you care for, why are you in that field?

The mental health facility I work at has a few black residents. I however would expect that someone calling them the N word would face consequences

flairsupply

Punishment is acceptable and warranted. Six months jail does seem excessive for misgendering. If it’s combined with negligence or further harassment and consistent, I could understand. I believe firing and some sort of state registry (similar to Megan’s Law for SOs) that could be accessed by care facilities and directors so they can make good choices would be a good response.

prettypeculiar88

If a care worker repeatedly verbally abused an elderly lesbian by referring to her as "he", do you think it is *definitely unreasonable* that the worker face some sort of legal consequence for that? Please answer "yes, that is definitely unreasonable", or "no, that is possibly reasonable".

DirtyDaddyPantal00ns

Should you lose your job for any form of what we consider hate speech here in America sure. Should it be a criminal offense? No that sounds like a slippery slope

TheRadHeron

Hard to say. It's not clear to me if this requires you to refer to them with a specific pronoun (compelled speech) or merely bars you from using the wrong pronoun (blocking speech/anti harassment)

meister2983

People shouldn't be forced to use language they don't agree with. We have a first amendment right to freedom of speech. 


Also, people that can't do a job should just be fired. People that can't work with other people should be fired. 



Don't force speech. Just fire them. 


Let them get a job where being a hateful piece of shit doesn't matter. 

tonydiethelm

No. Harassment is rightly a crime, is not free speech, and obviously given that, criminalizing it is not unconstitutional in any way.

jweezy2045

I think if it's legal to pass laws against harassment that should include harassment against transgender individuals as well.  It's not compelled speech that you can't call someone a slur.  This is certainly less compelled speech than forcing abortion providers to give misinformation to their patients.

Kerplonk

I'm not an expert on the first amendment. Would a different law banning other forms of verbal abuse by nursing home employees violate the first amendment? For example, a law banning nursing home employees from using offensive slurs against nursing home residents, like the n word or the f word? If the answer to that question no, then no the California law doesn't sound it violates the first amendment. If the answer to that question is yes, then yes the California law sounds like it violates the first amendment.

material_mailbox

Yeah it seems like a free speech issue

I think nobody should misgender anyone but I don't support banning any speech I disagree with 

In a case like that, it can be reasonable for employers to punish workers for speech that gets in the way of carrying out the job they are hired to do (and repeated, clearly intentional misgendering would count as such). But fines and legal punishment doesn't seem like the right way to do that, they should simply be fired if they refuse to do the job properly

Okbuddyliberals

I think no one should misgender anyone. 

However this is an important free speech issue.

Why is this an important free speech issue? Because it’s a slippery slope. If the government can ban certain words today, tomorrow they might pass a law saying you can’t call someone old, or stupid, or say “God doesn’t exist.” And in a few years then they’ll start jailing political candidates for saying things… and eventually it will be: welcome to the USSR.

This law will probably be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

CharityResponsible54

Wages, housing, and electricity are the only things Dems should run on. They get killed on these social issues.

smswigart

Post is flaired DISCUSSION. You are free to discuss &amp; debate the topic provided by OP

Please report bad faith commenters 

You’re doing great .. especially for someone who had no idea what they were doing 10 minutes ago.

VAWNavyVet

Well yeah. You can't dance around this one.

44035

They took away any hesitancy to do unconstitutional shit. 

Example: If he were to decide right now that Americans can no longer legally own firearms and signed an EO directing nationwide roundup, a judge wouldn’t be able to stop it right away with a nationwide injunction, because those don’t exist anymore. Someone would have to file a lawsuit and allow it to work its way through the court system until it finally got to the Supreme Court, and then in some future last Friday in June they would finally rule it unconstitutional. 

In that time, Trump could have deprived millions of Americans from their firearms.

tmanarl

No, they stopped the federal courts from seizing unconstitutional power.

intothewoods76

The president still has to answer to SCOTUS regarding constitutionality.

WiebeHall

No, the supreme court is enforcing the constitution.

rollo202

Yes. They literally made him dictator before he was even elected again with the immunity ruling.

BigBoyYuyuh

Right or left nationwide injunction against the executive branch policy is a horrible idea. I think democrats have already lost the 2028 election but they could win in 2032 and if this ruling didn’t come right wing judges could just block everything that president would try to do.

demihope

Not the intention, they wanted to stop judge and court shopping.  Lawsuits go to certain judges as folks know how they rule ( bought?) or go to certain districts because the appellant court rules in a certain way.  They may find a judge that they will try to stop an action country wide, that should not be the intent, as the judge doesn’t rule over the country.

Environmental law is a very good example.  Lived and worked for the Forest Service in Eastern Arizona, if an environmental group wanted to stop an action they would go after that action in Arizona even though the action is concurrent in New Mexico, all because when it is appealed it goes to the 9th circuit in California and they will side with the group.  If it was in NM the appeal court would side on the merits of case, could go either way.  For federal actions that occur across the country the one court blocks the nation.  

Looking at the nation wide injunctions against current administration policies, it was only a handful of judges and courts.

Hamblin113

The Biden Administration asked for the same relief multiple times because Republicans were going to single-judge divisions in which the sole judge is a republican appointee (likely, a Trump appointee) to file their lawsuits and get nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration. The egregiousness of the decision is not them ending the practice of nationwide injunctions, but the fact that they only did it when a Republican administration asked for it after choosing not to give the same relief to a Democratic administration. The case highlights the difference between the way they treat a Republican administration vs a Democratic administration when they ask for the same thing.

MrJenkins5

ikonoqlast

They didnt give him anything.  They simply affirmed the power he already had.

troy_caster

Give? No, they’re changing it back to how it was before the 1960s when judges gave themselves this power.

DBDude

Everyone is making this whole thing super overblown. All they need to do is change the individual lawsuits to class action lawsuits and they can continue effectively issuing nationwide injunctions. This ruling just makes them jump through one more hurdle to keep doing the same thing.


This is a good video by a constitutional law professor who breaks it down pretty well.
[https://youtu.be/WyuiOxyMARw?si=JedpW4aVs1n2sm8y](https://youtu.be/WyuiOxyMARw?si=JedpW4aVs1n2sm8y)

Potaeto_Object

This court is basically ruling themselves into irrelevance. I guess they don't care about what becomes of our republic after they are gone.

ImaginaryWeather6164

The Supreme Court of the United States of America is what defines whether something is constitutional or not. By that very definition, they did not and can not give the President "unconstitutional" power.

InfernoWarrior299

No, universal district court level injunctions are a very new thing and they have been used with increasing frequency. The ability of an unelected person to easily suspend the will of an elected person seems like an embalace of power not a check

Majsharan

It always seemed weird that some random, lower-level court judge could stop the Chief Executive's orders. Seemed like a power that should have been saved for the SC itself as it's the peer/counterbalance to the Executive.

SlyTanuki

DM_ME_YOUR_STORIES

I think the problem to me is the way they made this decision.

This same court had the chance to take the question of broad federal injunctions on with Biden.  Doing so and coming up with the same conclusion would have helped Biden’s agenda.  Instead they chose not to take  up the issue.

Now that doing so helps Trump, they decided to hear the case.  Having stuff like this happen poisons the appearance of impartiality of the court and makes all of their decisions suspect.

Gogs85

Relevant parties would mean national injunctions. Because executive actions are national. They had to be illogical and limit it in order to not upset Trump. 

So now he can do illegal things to some Americans. If he owns judges in certain areas, he can do whatever he wants there

semitope

"We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary"

AWatson89

This was how Plan B birth control was banned, their usual friendly judge.

SleeplessInTulsa

Everything the court is doing now will benefit the next democrat president  - they are mindless to this reality.

deberryzzz

The Supreme Court is packed with hard core Republicans. They twist the Constitution to support their lust for power, money, and cruelty in the same way that they twist the Bible. 

"If Republicans didn't have double standards, they have no standards at all" is a trope, but a super accurate one.

whoisnotinmykitchen

What the decision did was stop local courts from dictating what the rest of the country will do in regards to a ruling.  These matters will be brought before SCOTUS and only SCOTUS can rule on something that will, in essence, affect the entire country when a President issues an Executive Order. It came from the highest position in the Executive Branch, so only the highest position in the Judicial Branch should be able to determine its Constituonality. 

Right now the entire concept of "jurisdiction" is probably going to be realigned to what was originally intended. No, this is not using an outdated standard, not is it using an outdated definition. Throughout our history precedent gets examined, vetted, and then the terminology surrounding the law or Amendment is clarified, closing unforeseeable loopholes by the founding fathers. 

I fully support the examination of the word jurisdiction as it applies to the 14th Amendment because, according to the Mexican Constitution, a child born anywhere in the world from a legal Mexican parent is a Mexican citizen. What that means is that child is born legally under the full jurisdiction of the Mexican government and can always go home. That illegal immigrant does not have full jurisdictional rights in this country, so while they may fall under our penal codes, they do not have the right to vote. Only this who fall under complete jurisdictional authority of the USA are awarded those rights. The illegal immigrant parents never fell under full jurisdiction of the US so the 14th Amendment does not apply to them.

BubbleHeadBenny

I mean basically they just said that only the supreme Court has the power to impose it's will across the nation.  Which is ya know, how the founders framed it🤯

Several-Cheesecake94

Indeed they did. This court had been quietly killing this nation even before they stole the 2000 election from Al Gore. History, assuming that we still have a country in 75 years, will not be kind to this late 20th early 21st century SCOTUS.

Aromatic-Leopard-600

I think the answer IS yes: the executive now has unconstitutional power that was handed to them by the Supreme Court.
The biggest issue I have is that the SC chose that particular case, birthright citizenship, to make this ruling. This executive order is so blatantly unconstitutional. So the SC is giving the green light for future EOs that violate our county's most sacred document

SaveDMusician

No. They defended the constitution. Judges were trying to seize executive power. 

As an aside, the majority decision blasting Jackson for totally ignoring law, judicial precedent, and legal theory was one of the wildest things I’ve ever read. 

Reminded me of Billy Madison “I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.”

2LostFlamingos

No, the supreme court can still rule on the EO or law as being constitutional or unconstitutional. It just requires more time which is how it was for 200 years before nationwide injunctions became a thing.

esquared87

The Supreme Court's advisory opinion on Governors' powers has sparked debates about federalism and accountability in state governance.

Supreme Court Ruling on Governors' Powers and State Legislation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want