“THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE”

 As I was saying;

She added, “I noticed that you didn't take the substantive question to us. You only took the nationwide injunction question to us. Why wouldn't you take the substantive question to us?”

Pressing Sauer more Kagan added, “You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?”

Sauer attempted to answer but was swiftly cut off.

“You're ignoring the import of my question,” Kagan said. “I'm suggesting that in a case in which the government is losing constantly, there's nobody else who's going to appeal. They're winning. It's up to you to decide whether to take this case to us.”

The substantive question is the application of Sec.,1 of the 14th Amendment to all persons born here.

The Justices are hearing arguments on the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Sauer’s argument is that the 14th Amendment was for the children of slaves and not undocumented migrants.

But that’s not the issue the government brought before the Court. The government is only challenging the validity of the nationwide injunction. Hence, the question:

Pressing Sauer more Kagan added, “You're losing a bunch of cases. This guy over here, this woman over here, you know, they'll have to be treated as citizens, but nobody else will. Why would you ever take this case to us?”

Can the Court allow that kind of patchwork quilt?

Justice Jackson has the same concern:

Justice Jackson nails where we are right now:

“Your argument turns our justice system into a catch me if you can kind of regime from the standpoint of the Executive where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

And furthermore:

Justice Jackson - “Other parties are incidental beneficiaries of a court saying ‘stop violating the law.’ I mean that’s like every person in the country.”

YES THANK YOU

Justice Alito is a legend in his own mind. You’ll see when you get there (further down the screen). Not that I’m seeing a lot of support for the government’s 14th amendment argument.

During the oral arguments over birthright citizenship, Kagan pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer to make the case for Trump's executive order and shot down one answer by telling the attorney, "I mean, that's a lot of words and I don't have an answer for if one thinks — and, you know, look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions. But I think that the question that this case presents is that if one thinks that, it's quite clear that the [executive order] is illegal, how does one get to that result?"

When the attorney sidestepped her questions, conservative and Trump appointee Coney Barrett jumped in to ask if he really thought he was answering her colleague's questions.

This isn’t a sign the Court is on your side. Nor is this:

Justice Elena Kagan hits Trump's birthright citizenship executive order: "On the merits, you are wrong," she tells Solicitor General D. John Sauer. "The E.O. is unlawful."

This is what was being discussed:

In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?

Sauer said it would file a class action.

Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn't a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.

Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.

And should you be wondering about the Alito-Thomas wing:

Alito is SO big mad - he’s slapping the panel. Basically suggesting some trial courts suffer from Trump derangement syndrome and can’t be restrained by panels

“The court of the appeals gives it the back of the hand???”

I’m sorry you’re impugning lower courts for issuing sloppy opinions????

A complaint from the Godfather of sloppy opinions (his Dobbs opinion was an embarrassment). But Alito just really doesn’t like judges who are not…Alito:

Wow, Alito is really telling on himself with this question. ("judges have disease that makes them think they're the smartest person ever")

He also seems to think district judges just should not make such momentous decisions, an argument that runs headlong into the Kagan/Brown buzz saw (was he even listening?)

Justice Alito is throwing shade on federal district judges. He's not wrong about the practical problem. But his suggestion that the multi-member nature of SCOTUS constrains the arrogance of him and his colleagues is . . . not reality-based.

I really think Kavanugh is slipping the stilleto into the ribs here:

Kavanaugh: “tell me what I can write in my opinion ruling for you, Trump admin, about why this wouldn’t be so bad.”

That fucking Guy.

I’m just gonna close by repeating that Justice Kagan was NOT having it:

Elena Kagan: “okay, what if you lose everywhere and then you never take the case to us so there’s never a nationwide ruling?” A

“If I was in your shoes I would NEVER approach the Supreme Court with this case”

“You’d need somebody to lose. NOBODY IS GOING TO LOSE IN THIS CASE.” Elena Kagan getting INCREASINGLY agitated.

“THIS IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL THIS IS HAPPENING EVERYWHERE”

Alito would have looked smarter if he just hadn’t said anything.