Thanks for this excellent article. I wonder if the key justices might be moved by the following argument (usually raised by judges at oral argument): what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if the Pres whose solo executive power they were asked to uphold was not Trump but instead a liberal Democrat? What if the constitutional right that the Pres tried to undo by EO was the Second Amendment instead of the 14th?
Whatever reasoning the Ct wants to apply to justify Trump’s evisceration of birthright citizenship would equally authorize a Pres like Elizabeth Warren to restrict the right to possess military-grade weapons. What do you think the justices would say distinguishes the cases?
So thankful for you. I might know in my gut that what the Supreme Court is doing is wrong, but I don’t have adequate knowledge or framework to put it into words. Your expertise is priceless.
I look forward to the teach ins. As a non lawyer I cannot square any rationale ‘explanation’ for the consistency with which the conservatives have made decisions supporting putting decision making entirely in the hands, of all people, the worst decision maker in my life time, a liar and a man hell bent on destroying Democracy while everyday seeking revenge against his enemies; a man who is paranoid, pathological and delusional. How is there consistency in consolidating power with Trump in anyone’s best interest? How are their decisions not supporting the nihilism of human beings, babies, institutions etc sane or thoughtful?
Yes, let's go! I look forward to the teach-ins in September, but I think we need to get an easily articulated statement of what this case means -- of what giving the President the power to overrun an explicit constitutional right by EO means -- out to everyone sooner than September. Is that possible? It could go something like this:
"The question in Trump v. Casa is whether a President, acting alone, has the power to overrun an explicit right guaranteed to "we the people" in the Constitution. If the Court rules that a US President does have this power, it means that the President is essentially a dictator. S/he alone gets to say what rights we have, and what rights we don't have. The Courts can't stop him, Congress can't stop him, the Constitution won't protect us.(Then give concrete examples of what constitutional rights could be taken away from people)."
We need a simple statement that average people can get firmly in their minds, and can articulate to other average people.
Thank you so much, Ms. Ifill. I am so grateful for your clear-eyed brilliance and all the work you do.
I cried as I read your post, but I knew you would point us to a way forward. I was right. Thank you for your passion and expertise, Sherrilyn. I look forward to the teach ins. And, I am so thankful and grateful that you are on Substack.
My concern is the trad Roman Catholic thread and the Red Masses and Leonard Leo. The Federalist Society has been around for a long time. This hold not unlike after the Civil War and then after the beginnings of the New Deal. Thanks for your work and striving so important.
Wow. Thank you Sherrilyn. We needed this wake up call. Your analysis has convinced me. No more assuming that SCOTUS won’t rule in Trumps favor on an open and shut case that he should lose. Very scary. But I’m getting prepared.
I agree, the Pro-Project 2025 Roberts and his justices are full blown MAGA and no longer respect our Constitution. Yet, we must continue to resist and fight back! 🇺🇸
Sherrilyn, "The conservative majority on this SCOTUS is fully aligned with President Trump’s vision of his Executive power." There is no doubt about it!!
I look forward to receiving information on how to register for the webinars in September. Thank you for your concern and for keeping us informed.
Thank you for once again shedding light on these important issues. Knowledge is power and I appreciate your recognition of the fact and bringing classes to us all. I think Ken Banes make a good argument.
Thanks for the webinars. Will attend. When the Roberts Court does what it is signaling, it will completely delegitimize itself, on the scale of the Taney Court deciding that chattel slavery in the whole nation was just hunky-dory. I don't mind if they find they can't show their faces in public without being shamed. The nation is in bad trouble.
Thanks for this excellent article. I wonder if the key justices might be moved by the following argument (usually raised by judges at oral argument): what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if the Pres whose solo executive power they were asked to uphold was not Trump but instead a liberal Democrat? What if the constitutional right that the Pres tried to undo by EO was the Second Amendment instead of the 14th?
Whatever reasoning the Ct wants to apply to justify Trump’s evisceration of birthright citizenship would equally authorize a Pres like Elizabeth Warren to restrict the right to possess military-grade weapons. What do you think the justices would say distinguishes the cases?
Thanks!
Looking forward to your teacher-ins in September. You are deeply appreciated and respected for your knowledge and expertise.
So thankful for you. I might know in my gut that what the Supreme Court is doing is wrong, but I don’t have adequate knowledge or framework to put it into words. Your expertise is priceless.
I look forward to the teach ins. As a non lawyer I cannot square any rationale ‘explanation’ for the consistency with which the conservatives have made decisions supporting putting decision making entirely in the hands, of all people, the worst decision maker in my life time, a liar and a man hell bent on destroying Democracy while everyday seeking revenge against his enemies; a man who is paranoid, pathological and delusional. How is there consistency in consolidating power with Trump in anyone’s best interest? How are their decisions not supporting the nihilism of human beings, babies, institutions etc sane or thoughtful?
Yes, let's go! I look forward to the teach-ins in September, but I think we need to get an easily articulated statement of what this case means -- of what giving the President the power to overrun an explicit constitutional right by EO means -- out to everyone sooner than September. Is that possible? It could go something like this:
"The question in Trump v. Casa is whether a President, acting alone, has the power to overrun an explicit right guaranteed to "we the people" in the Constitution. If the Court rules that a US President does have this power, it means that the President is essentially a dictator. S/he alone gets to say what rights we have, and what rights we don't have. The Courts can't stop him, Congress can't stop him, the Constitution won't protect us.(Then give concrete examples of what constitutional rights could be taken away from people)."
We need a simple statement that average people can get firmly in their minds, and can articulate to other average people.
Thank you so much, Ms. Ifill. I am so grateful for your clear-eyed brilliance and all the work you do.
I cried as I read your post, but I knew you would point us to a way forward. I was right. Thank you for your passion and expertise, Sherrilyn. I look forward to the teach ins. And, I am so thankful and grateful that you are on Substack.
My concern is the trad Roman Catholic thread and the Red Masses and Leonard Leo. The Federalist Society has been around for a long time. This hold not unlike after the Civil War and then after the beginnings of the New Deal. Thanks for your work and striving so important.
Wow. Thank you Sherrilyn. We needed this wake up call. Your analysis has convinced me. No more assuming that SCOTUS won’t rule in Trumps favor on an open and shut case that he should lose. Very scary. But I’m getting prepared.
I agree, the Pro-Project 2025 Roberts and his justices are full blown MAGA and no longer respect our Constitution. Yet, we must continue to resist and fight back! 🇺🇸
Sherrilyn, "The conservative majority on this SCOTUS is fully aligned with President Trump’s vision of his Executive power." There is no doubt about it!!
I look forward to receiving information on how to register for the webinars in September. Thank you for your concern and for keeping us informed.
Thank you for once again shedding light on these important issues. Knowledge is power and I appreciate your recognition of the fact and bringing classes to us all. I think Ken Banes make a good argument.
I'm all in for the fight...
Thanks for the webinars. Will attend. When the Roberts Court does what it is signaling, it will completely delegitimize itself, on the scale of the Taney Court deciding that chattel slavery in the whole nation was just hunky-dory. I don't mind if they find they can't show their faces in public without being shamed. The nation is in bad trouble.