JUDICIAL TYRANNY: Supreme Court to Hear Trump Challenge to Universal Injunctions by Radical, Rogue Judges

Far left judges issue rulings that go far beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies. It is a grotesque seizure of power that puts the entire nation at risk.

The Supreme Court under a corrupt and compromised Justice Roberts has abandoned it’s judicial responsibility to uphold the Constitution. He is owned.

The case proper is over birthright citizenship. This hearing, however, will be about the numerous injunctions that have sought to limit the administration’s efforts coast to coast. SCOTUS Blog: The dispute is one of the relatively rare proceedings that came to the justices as an emergency appeal – on the so-called “shadow docket” – only to be set for oral arguments…. the primary issue before the court on Thursday is whether lower-court judges can issue what are known as universal injunctions to block an order nationwide. With a universal injunction, a federal judge (or several in this case) can that bar the government from enforcing an executive order – or, in another case, a law or policy – anywhere in the country. The Trump administration, which has been blocked by many such injunctions in recent months, argues that the practice is unconstitutional…. President Donald Trump set the events leading to Thursday’s argument in motion on Jan. 20, when he signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship. Under the order, which was originally slated to go into effect on Feb. 19, children born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship if their parents were in this country illegally or temporarily – for example, on a work or student visa…. Seven years ago, in a concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Clarence Thomas called universal injunctions “legally and historically dubious.” Moreover, he added, they are “beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch” (SCOTUSblog).

The very fact that they are holding this hearing may bode well for the president. Margot Cleveland at the Federalist: That the Supreme Court scheduled oral argument on the nationwide injunction issue, while the underlying question of the constitutionality of the president’s EO continues to percolate in the lower courts, suggests several of the justices have grave concerns over nationwide injunctions. Further, as the Trump Administration’s brief highlights, five justices — Justices Alito, Barrett, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch — at different times and in various concurrences or dissents, have criticized the use of nationwide injunctions (Federalist).