More On The Supreme Court

The Hill has an interesting take on the Supreme Court ruling, basically they say it is the modern version of the Dred Scott decision.

The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott 

By Austin Sarat and Steve Kramer

June 30, 2025

In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of so-called “universal injunctions” as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of “originalism.” 

In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself.

This whole argument of “originalism” is BULL! Take guns for an example... in 1788 the signers of the Constitution never even dreamed of guns that shoot a hundred rounds a minute. The never ever thought about moving faster then 10 mph and that was on a fast horse! An airplane? A car? Vaccines were developed not until a couple of year later and that was only in England, the news hadn't reached here yet.

And the decision is going to cause a nightmare as I wrote yesterday, this editorial says...

To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration.

We are going down the rabbit hole!

None of that seemed to matter to Barrett and her conservative colleagues, though. They insisted that because nationwide injunctions were not issued by English courts, federal district and appellate courts should not be able to use them today. 

They are living in the past rather than dealing with the realities of the present. As Barrett put it, “because the universal injunction lacks a historical pedigree, it falls outside the bounds of a federal court’s equitable authority.”

So they went all the way back to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, where English Courts mean common law. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have echoed this view in Supreme Court opinions, calling nationwide injunctions “legally and historically dubious” and lacking “basis in traditional equitable practice” [Colorado Law]

It is funny how the very same court had no problems with the federal Texas judge they praised his nationwide bans...

Texas judge in abortion pill case is a conservative favorite

AP News

By  LINDSAY WHITEHURST and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

March 15, 2023

A Texas judge hearing a case that could throw into jeopardy access to the nation’s most common method of abortion is a former attorney for a Christian legal group who critics say is being sought out by conservative litigants because they believe he’ll be sympathetic to their causes.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who’s considering a lawsuit aimed at putting a nationwide halt to use of the drug mifepristone, was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2019 over fierce opposition by Democrats over his history opposing LGBTQ rights. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone in the body and is used with the drug misoprostol to end pregnancy within the first 10 weeks.

But now the shoe is on the other foot... and the Republicans are screaming bloody murder over nationwide injuctions!