• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”

    They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.

    • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        No. The core issue has not been decided. When courts in one state rule differently from courts in another, it goes up to federal court. When federal courts in different circuits rule differently, it goes up to SCOTUS. This issue isn’t at that point just yet.

      • chuymatt@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.