After reading through the supreme court decision on injuctions, I noticed a few things.
The 6 justices in agreement all stuck to a tight argument of "We are only discussing a court's power of injunction, not the merits of the cases being injuncted" seems perfectly reasonable, they arent pre empting the cases or grand standing, buttt...
Sotomayor seems to have the longest opinion of any of the justices. Dozens of pages decrying how the majority "only focuses on the injunctions and not the clear illegality of the executive order on birthright citizenship" grandstanding and delivering her opinion I now see why people call her retarded. Literally the case brought before them is relief from injunctions and whether the lower courts are over stepping their bounds. She literally just complains abought the merits of the actual birthright case itself. Really seems improper of an SC judge.
Jackson is just as retarded, saying she wholly agrees with Sotomayor and then saying that the lower courts should have universal power to issue injunctions, essentially allowing district judges to place themselves over the president, not as equals. Then, I noticed.... she starts sentences with "But".... and uses slang like "Lawyering up", among others. You would think an SC judge would have mastered proper writing and not make mistakes that highschoolers are taught to avoid.
Essentially, the opinion of the majority seems to be that, why yes, courts do have the power of national injunctions, they have been abusing it, and historically, Its use is rare. They are finger wagging the lower courts warning them to check themselves. They also bring up a good point saying that lower courts are able to get around this by allowing injunctive relief on class wide litigation. So if the left starts class action lawsuits, they can get around the soft limit on national injunctions.
This only grants relief on these 3 cases, the issue of what power the lower courts have to issue injunctions will be decided once this case works it's way through the SC.
