US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

All I'm saying is that all inferior courts exist at the pleasure of congress. They can remove all power and force all the district and appeals court judges of power and put them effectively into retirement. The only thing that congress cannot do, without impeachment, is lower or remove their salary.

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

> But in 2024 he continued to used terms like “Drain the Swamp” that directly refer to downsizing government.

In this context, "drain the swamp" refers to downsizing the Democrat-voting civil service. It's chiefly an objection to the fact that, even when a Republican wins, the actual government is controlled by people who hate Republicans and try to undermine the elected administration's policies.

RCP has Trump at 45% approve, 51% disapprove, which is where Obama was for much of his second term. Biden was significantly below that for all but two short periods after 2021. So if people voted for Trump thinking he'd cut Social Security and Medicare and now are disappointed about it, it's not showing up in the polling.

> As to Democrats it’s not a hand wavy standpoint.

It's totally unmoored from reality. The 2022 deficit was $1.4 trillion. The total income of people in the top 1% that year was $3.3 trillion, and they paid $560 billion in income taxes: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-in....

You could double the federal tax burden on everyone from Facebook program managers up to Mark Zuckerberg and not come close to closing the deficit, much less making room for universal healthcare and free college. But "we'll have generous government services and the rich people will pay for it" is the same sort of innumerate fantasy as "we'll build a wall and Mexico will pay for it."

Every European country today pays for its welfare state with heavy, broad-based taxes on the top 60%. If you're telling people that you can have a European-style welfare state without European-style middle classes taxes, then you're in RFK Jr. anti-vaxxer levels of denying reality.

> ~Half of federal revenue came from companies in the 1950’s today it’s vastly lower.

It was never more than about 30%, during World War II and immediately thereafter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_Uni.... It was back below 20% by the mid 1960s. But it's 2025, not 1955. The U.S. doesn't have the leverage to tax trans-national corporations the way it did when Europe's economy was obliterated by World War II.

The massive reduction of corporate income tax as a source of tax revenue has happened across the entire developed world.

If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures relief is tailored to the parties or district, preventing a single district judge from dictating national policy.

While federal law applies uniformly, reasonable people and courts can disagree on controversial issues. Localized PIs allow diverse judicial input and foster a broader dialogue before a final ruling.

Court shopping for nationwide injunctions, common in cases like Obama’s DACA or Trump’s policies, lets one judge halt national policy…

Affirming a democratically elected executive’s mandate, Obama with DACA or Trump with immigration reforms is reasonable and respects the separation of powers.

IMO Congress needs to act more effectively, passing clear laws on issues like immigration to reduce reliance on executive orders and judicial battles.

No, you need to be in the specific judicial district to be protected until there’s a class action suit with an injunction.

This is all a joke anyway. There’s no real rule of law. This is a game to extract more power.

There's two main claims that you see when it comes to the ACLU losing its way. The first one is that they don't really do second amendment cases. Some of the motivation is genuinely the conscience of the people who work there, but the much much bigger factor, because the ACLU takes on lots of conscience testing cases, is that the NRA is extremely well funded and will fight the case anyway. There's already an organization laser focused on that issue and is legislatively successful, they don't need the ACLU lawyers' help. More broadly people see the ACLU taking on more "left wing" cases, and this is largely for the same reason. If you have limited resources then you end up having to focus on the cases where there aren't other organizations with legal expertise to step in. And despite what conservative media will tell you, there aren't actually all that many people defending, say, the lgbt. Lots of organizations will show their disapproval of these laws and make a lot of unproductive noise about them, but when it comes time to actually put up money and lawyers to fight them, all the hands stay down.

The second claim is their handling of covid. And the thing is this is an interesting case study for the ACLU. One of the things that people expect from organizations is devotion to a set of principles, and that the organization will die on any hill involving them. And Covid was a situation in which they had to ask themselves whether or not dying on their hill was the right thing to do even if they were wrong. Not wrong in sense that they are defending the "bad people," they do that all the time, but that this is a situation that is genuinely exceptional and that the health and safety of the nation is more important than people's individual civil liberties. And if you turn up the severity of the pandemic I personally think it is fairly obvious that this would be the right choice. It's a hard thing to look at ideals that you have dedicated your life and career to and weigh them against people's lives. Where the controversy lies is how severe you think covid was and whether that severity crossed the threshold. And if you didn't the ACLU's actions look like an arbitrary betrayal of their core principles.