#Order of Supreme Court

[megayogiposts]

RTI Request Successfully Filed: Key Details

Your RTI Request filed successfully. Please note down the following details for further references. Registration NumberUPICM/R/2024/60674NameYogi M P SinghDate of Filing11-11-2024RTI Fee Received   10Online Reference NumberCPAELFCED8Transaction StatusSuccessRequest filed withUttar Pradesh Information Commission Contact Details of Nodal Officer  Telephone Number9415021746Email-ID  Contact…

[onlytiktoks]

[indecisiveavocado]

a whole new level of awful: donald trump directly contradicts the constitution, potentially turning presidents into kings

Yesterday, Donald Trump directly contradicted the Constitution in an executive order.

Wait, what's an executive order?

An executive order is a direction by the President to agencies, often legally binding. They're often quite boring. The first executive order issued this year (2025) was establishing a chain of succession in some obscure office.

Executive orders are common, but not incredibly so. Since 1937, the most prolific president in absolute terms was FDR, with 2023, and the least prolific Biden, with 160. If you account for the varying numbers of years, the most prolific was still FDR, with around 252 per year, and the least prolific Obama, with around 35 per year. That's not a huge number.

The critical thing about executive orders is that there is no congressional process. None. They are made by the President's whims, and can be used to effectively pass laws that could not be passed otherwise. For instance, Executive Order 9066, by FDR, established the Japanese-American internment camps. Congress did not review this; the only way to challenge it was via the courts. Similarly for Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Executive Order 12127, by Jimmy Carter, established FEMA. Other executive orders have prohibited discrimination in the federal and sometimes civilian workforce, established the Peace Corps, created the National Labor Relations Board, and, much more recently, banned travel from many Muslim-majority countries to the US as part of Trump's Muslim ban. Again, there is almost no oversight. The only way to fight this is via the courts.

What does this one say, and how does that contradict the Constitution?

This executive order states, effectively, that if someone is born in the US but has a parent who is undocumented, they are not a US citizen. This directly contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment, which states "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

What are the consequences of this if it's allowed to stand?

If it is allowed to stand, it will have two far-reaching consequences that will change American democracy and turn into, effectively, a kingdom.

The first change is based on the fact that executive orders would now be elevated above the Constitution, thus meaning any executive order Trump signs--and remember, there are no restrictions on these--would be law.

The second change would be that there would be no recourse. There would be no way to fight back against it save by appealing to the goodness of his heart (of which, of course, there is none), because, after all, what appeal can be made? If it's above the Constitution, it's also above any other law that might be invoked to show it's illegal. In other words, if upheld as legal, this executive order would elevate executive orders, and with them the President, to the unchallengeable supreme law of the land.

It would turn the president--right now that's Trump, God save us all--into a king.

Will it be allowed to stand?

I don't know. The Supreme Court has shown some slight backbone, but overall it has pretty much yielded to Trump. Unless two or more typically conservative justices--so two of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett--stray from Trump's party line, that order will probably be upheld. I don't think they'll do so; after all, doing so would basically remove their power. But I'm not as confident as I'd like to be.

Basically, our democracy's continuation is now in the hands of six awful people.

Is there anything I can do?

Not really. I mean, yes, lobby, call your congresspeople, mail them angry letters, support your local library, all that jazz. But honestly, there isn't so much you can do when it's at this scale. (Unless, of course, you're Trump or a Supreme Court justice. In which case, hi, please stop this!) Just knowing about it and sharing that knowledge will help.

[eurekq]

The best way to stay sane rn is to just remember that executive orders, even when they are written very carefully with strong legal counsel, are not very difficult to overturn, and are, and i cannot emphasize this strongly enough, NOT LAW. Their main purpose is for regulation of internal governmental affairs within the confines of existing law. They can also be, like, instantly dismissed by the next president.

Your better bet right now is keeping an eye on your states policies. Many state policymakers are being emboldened by trumps exec orders and are taking advantage of a distracted, confused, and politically disengaged constituency to try to pass vile shit at the state level. Many red state governments are also insanely understaffed and easy to overwhelm with calls and emails (I would know, I work for one).

Keep an eye on proposed bills in your states, and, if you feel safe doing so, talk to the moderate republicans and libertarians in your family or other circles; emphasize the devaluation of the consitution, the abuse of our political systems, and the encroachment into personal privacy and freedoms. Speak their language, as it were. These people are far more likely to actually call their reps and be taken seriously as a part of the core voter base. Make calls posing as a Republican voter yourself with these same tactics if you think you can pull it off; they're more likely to value the opinion of those they share a platform with. Look into their backgrounds, see what their origins are, play to that.

Just dont obey in advance, okay? Especially if you don't even know what you're obeying.

[tanadrin]

The latest 5-4 episode, on Hans v Louisiana, highlights a big problem with the history of the Supreme Court in the U.S., which is that a lot of Supreme Court decisions are the product of really specific political pressures--in this case, the lack of political will by the federal government in 1890 to enforce federal power against the Southern states thirteen years after the Compromise of 1877--for which the Court often acts as a release valve. But, because of the nature of the court and the structure of American law, these high-context political decisions have to be framed as eternal and general principles of law, which exert a heavy influence on later decisions of the Court. Sometimes, as with Hans (which made enforcement of civil rights more difficult) this might be consonant with the political outlook of the original decision, but sometimes it's just complete chaos. Cases like Bush v Gore that have no systematic principle behind them, but nevertheless have to be framed that way, to the detriment of future case law.

I don't know that this is a fully solvable problem! Certainly the small size of the Supreme Court introduces more variability into its decisions; that plus its highly politicized system of appointments makes it a really obvious place to fight for power; and the lack of a clean separation between its role as an appellate court and its role as a constitutional court muddles things further. But even if you could go back in time to expand the court massively, have cases heard by randomly-selected panels, split off the constitutional function into a separate court, and try to implement some kind of non-partisan appointment commission (all of which would require significant constitutional changes), I don't think you would necessarily get a different outcome in Hans, just because of how fundamentally apathetic the federal government was at the time to political dysfunction in the South, and how clearly they had demonstrated an unwillingness to actually follow through with the premise of Reconstruction.

I'd say that the thing that might help most in preventing decisions like Hans becoming millstones around the neck of future generations would be a willingness to call out obviously political bullshit masquerading as timeless legal principles, but I think nowadays people are pretty willing to do that. Bush v Gore, DC v Heller, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas's corruption scandals, and various other cases and stories have been a sharp reminder in recent years to anyone who was laboring under the illusion that SCOTUS really was an impartial machine of law, and even people who think it could or should be that are not very likely to claim it is right now.

But if the Supreme Court is going to be an ordinary political organ, I sort of think we should treat it like one, and just directly elect justices for fixed terms. Would that introduce grubby, messy electoral politics into the august body? Of course. But grubby, messy electoral politics is already there, the augustness is a sham, and presently the way that the court functions makes it a weird, tiny, by-appointment-only, members-serve-for-life third chamber of Congress, an American version of the Guardian Council, which is really bad for the coherent functioning of the political system.

[voidcharms]

very tired of ppl on this site using the boar's head recalls as justification for voting against trump when biden's admin was Also directly responsible in cutting USDA testing ahead of the listeria outbreaks

im not gonna discourage anyone from voting for harris tomorrow esp those in swing states, but this is why it's important for your politics to be about policy rather than blindly trusting politicians bc theyre "blue." if we only fight back on bad policies when it's a republican pushing it, but not when it's a democrat, we will never be able to stop our government's continuous ratcheting towards fascism

[mostlysignssomeportents]

How (and why) Biden should overcome the Supreme Court to end the debt showdown

’m coming to the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in HAY-ON-WYE with my novel Red Team Blues:

Sun (May 28), 1130AM: The AI Enigma

Mon (May 29), 12PM: Danger and Desire at the Frontier

I’m at OXFORD’s Blackwell’s on May 29 at 7:30PM with Tim Harford.

Then it’s Nottingham, Manchester, London, Edinburgh, and Berlin!

Is it legal for Congress to default on the US national debt? It depends on who you ask. There are a ton of good legal arguments for and against, so perhaps it comes down to what the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court says?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/04/opinion/biden-administration-debt-republican.html

Put in those terms, it seems like the game was over before it began. Biden should just surrender, hand the most extreme wing of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, authoritarian) Republican Party whatever it wants, even if doing so will push Biden’s approval rating even lower, dangerously close to the next federal election.

In this telling, the Republicans have already won. The decision to let the GOP steal three Supreme Court seats, combined with the decision not to end the debt ceiling charade when Dems had the majorities to do so, means that from now on, we live in the GOP’s shithole country, where the only “freedoms” that matter are the freedom to control others’ bodily autonomy and gender expression; the freedom to exploit labor; the freedom to censor ideas that challenge white nationalist, imperialist messages; and the freedom to menace with open-carry assault weapons:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/opinion/republican-legislatures-abortion-trangender-education.html

In other words, we’re screwed. Might as well dig a hole, climb inside, and pull the dirt in on top of us.

Fuck that.

There are clear majorities in support of the Build Back Better agenda, and even for the watered down Machin Synematic Universe version we got through the Infrastructure Bill. If the Dems could mobilize voters — by convincing them that they were committed to doing things rather than capitulating — they could win strong majorities in 2024. Even in the gerrymandered, antimajoritarian America, electoral wins are possible — they just require overwhelming turnout, rather than the 50.00001% “victories” favored by “data-driven” Democratic consultants (victories that leave the party incapable of governing, and let monsters like Joe Manchin hold the entire nation hostage).

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe doing things won’t mobilize voters. But if we’re already going to stipulate that without significant majorities, the real President of the United States is the three-headed monster (Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts), and the billionaires who yank their chains, then what do we have to lose?

There are a lot of things that Biden could try to get through the debt ceiling crisis without giving up on the promises he made to the American people and the programs the American Congress passed. Here’s a couple interesting ones, courtesy of Brad DeLong:

“The Federal Reserve might simply record a negative balance in the Treasury account,” then create an “overdraft” account and pay the US’s obligations out of it;

The Fed could tell retail banks trying to clear government checks that the checks didn’t clear, and the banks could tell their depositors, “ your Treasury check has bounced, but do not worry, we have credited your account, anyway, and will handle this, and please be very grateful to us.”

https://braddelong.substack.com/p/debt-ceiling-what-are-e-fallback

Of course, there are lots of other possibilities: Biden could issue an Executive Order to the effect that the Debt Ceiling violates the 14th Amendment. Or that it violates the Contracts Clause. Or he could order the Treasury to start issuing coupon-free bonds. Or he could just mint the coin:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/23/23734654/government-debt-default-trillion-dollar-platinum-coin

Yes, each of these would end up in front of the (degraded, corrupt, illegitimate, partisan) Supreme Court, who would very likely strike them down.

But writing for The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper argues that this could still be sound tactics:

https://prospect.org/economy/2023-05-25-democrats-fear-supreme-court/

If Biden does something about the debt default, and the Supremes block it, then the default is their fault. What’s more, it’s a mess they absolutely do not want to get into, like deciding which of the US’s creditors will and won’t get paid when they sue over the default. And if the court won’t do it, will they give the president the power to “just pick and choose what gets paid? That would give him a de facto line-item veto over the entire budget, and the Court has already ruled that a law explicitly giving him that power is unconstitutional”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Basically, if the Supreme Court kills Biden’s attempt to resolve the budget crisis, then it becomes the Supreme Court’s problem, as everyone owed a federal payment “say, Social Security beneficiaries or military contractors,” brings a case — “There would be tens of millions of such potential litigants.”

So what should Biden do?

Call their bluff.

First, mint the coin. If the court strikes that down, issue coupon-free bonds. If the court strikes that down, declare debt ceilings to violate the 14th Amendment. If the court strikes that down, declare it to violate the Contracts Clause. Keep doing it. Throw in every solution including the kitchen sink — but never give into the GOP’s demand for Biden to violate his promise to the American people and unilaterally tear up laws establishing programs that make our lives better.

This is what Lincoln did when the Supreme Court blocked his attempts to end slavery. It’s what FDR did when they blocked the New Deal. The court doesn’t have an army, it can’t force its decisions on the American people. It doesn’t have a bureaucratic workforce and it can’t take over the administrative branch — hell, they don’t even have the keys to the office buildings.

The Supreme Court’s power comes from its legitimacy, not force of arms, and while they may not act like it, the Supremes know in their bones that without legitimacy, they are nothing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes

The justices in stolen seats have made it clear that they consider themselves to be “a de facto super-legislature that rules in favor of its own partisan policy objectives based on tendentious up-is-down reasoning or no reasoning at all.” This is an illegitimate proposition.

The Supreme Court can’t get any less legitimate. If Biden were to ignore the Supremes and make good law in the teeth of their pronouncements, it couldn’t make the situation any worse than it is today. The Supremes have set themselves against labor law, against climate resiliency, against bodily autonomy, against political accountability, against the rule of law itself. We should not — we must not — cede the power to overrule democratically elected lawmakers and the will of the people.

As Cooper says, Biden should tell the Supremes to go pound sand and then “raise holy hell in speeches and the press to make clear the grotesque irresponsibility of what is happening”:

Here’s an institution trying to cause a completely pointless national default, destroying untold jobs, businesses, and the credit rating of the country, whose elite members are all unelected, where five members of the majority were appointed by a president who took office after losing the popular vote, and one of whom occupies a blatantly stolen seat. Here’s an institution that has struck down anti-corruption laws by the bushel and is openly rolling in oligarch graft like Scrooge McDuck, while declaring itself to be immune from oversight. All that would add to the political pressure on the justices.

If Biden can’t do well for the American people they they will not turn out in the massive majorities that Democrats need to get minimal majorities. If Biden can’t do well for the American people, then Biden — who would lose an election to either Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump if it were called today — will turn America’s predators loose on its people for at least four more years:

https://jacobin.com/2023/05/2024-presidential-election-2016-donald-trump-joe-biden/

And let’s face it, it’ll be Trump. DeSantis is dead in the water. The GOP is the party of out-of-control, swivel-eyed loons who’ve been whipped into a terrorized frenzy by an evil, crapulent senescent Australian billionaire and his freak henchmen, like the taint-tanning frozen food failson. They aren’t going to elect “smart Trump.” They like “stupid Trump” (AKA “Trump”) too much.

Catch me on tour with Red Team Blues in Hay-on-Wye, Oxford, Manchester, Nottingham, London, and Berlin!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

[Image ID: A kitchen sink. The Supreme Court building protrudes from it. Behind the sink is a window. Joe Biden grins from the other side of the window.]

Image: Joe Ravi (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[thegaybiochemist]

Alright Biden, you know what to do

[megayogiposts]

Compliance of Order of Apex Court: Digitalization Efforts

Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> No OTP is being sent by the portal so could not proceed to register.1 message Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>16 December 2024 at 00:38To: cic@hry.nic.in, cmharyana@nic.inMost respected chief information commissioner of government of Haryana the applicant is sending OTP from the rti portal at the government of…

[onlytiktoks]

The people don't want this, but it could soon be up to the Supreme Court, 3 of which were appointed by Donald Trump himself...

[hauntedfuryz]

SC Allows BJP Govt to Retract Appeal on ABHIM HC Order

In a noteworthy decision, the Supreme Court of India has permitted the BJP-led government to withdraw its appeal against a High Court order concerning ABHIM. This comes after the Delhi High Court issued a ruling that was contested by the government, sparking legal debates.

The case revolves around ABHIM, an acronym that has garnered significant attention due to its political implications. The High Court had delivered a judgment that the government initially challenged, seeking a reversal of the order. However, the Supreme Court’s latest move allows the government to retract its appeal, effectively leaving the High Court’s decision intact unless further legal action is taken.

The case has been closely monitored by legal experts and political analysts, as ABHIM has become a controversial issue involving various government policies. The BJP’s decision to withdraw the appeal indicates a shift in strategy, as further legal complications could have arisen from continued opposition to the High Court's verdict.

Sources suggest that the BJP government, which has been facing increasing scrutiny over its handling of this case, may now focus on other avenues to address the concerns raised by the High Court. The move could also signal the government's intention to avoid prolonged legal battles and instead seek alternative solutions.

The ruling is expected to have wider implications for future government appeals, particularly in cases involving administrative orders and judicial review. Legal analysts are now keenly watching whether this case will set a precedent for other similar disputes between the state and the judiciary.

As the story continues to unfold, more updates are expected regarding the government’s next steps in this complex legal matter.

[dtpnews]

Supreme Court orders new trial in Oklahoma motel killing

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered a new trial for an Oklahoma death row inmate convicted of plotting to kill the owner of a motel he managed. Doubts about the guilt of Richard Glossip have remained for decades. Twice, the Supreme Court has blocked his execution. The state’s attorney general said he too questioned Glossip’s guilt. In a 5-3 decision, the justices set aside his…

[rightnewshindi]

बापू आसाराम ने उड़ाई सुप्रीम कोर्ट के आदेशों की धज्जियां, इंदौर में हर रोज इक्कठा कर रहा हजारों लोग

Madhya Pradesh News: नाबालिग से दुष्कर्म के मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट से अंतरिम जमानत पर चल रहे बापू आसाराम इन दिनों इंदौर पहुंच चुका है। अदालत द्वारा निर्धारित शर्तों के बावजूद वह प्रवचन कर रहा है, अनुयायियों से खुलकर बातचीत कर रहा है। इंदौर स्थित उसके आश्रम में प्रतिदिन हजार से अधिक लोग प्रवचन सुनने के लिए एकत्र हो रहे हैं। इससे पहले, पालनपुर (गुजरात) के आश्रम का एक वीडियो सामने आया था, जिसमें…

[eveningkeralanews]

‘ജനപ്രീതിയുണ്ടെന്ന് കരുതി എന്തും പറയാമെന്ന് കരുതരുത്’, രൺവീർ അലബാദിയയുടെ ഹര്‍ജിയില്‍ കടുത്ത വിമര്‍ശനവുമായി സുപ്രീംകോടതി

ദില്ലി: അശ്ലീല പരാമര്‍ശത്തില്‍ വിവിധ സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളില്‍ എടുത്ത കേസുകള്‍ ഒരുമിച്ച് പരിഗണിക്കണമെന്ന രൺവീർ അലബാദിയയുടെ ഹര്‍ജിയില്‍ കടുത്ത വിമര്‍ശനവുമായി സുപ്രീംകോടതി.എന്തുതരം പരാമർശമാണ് നടത്തിയത് എന്ന് കോടതി ചോദിച്ചു. അപലപനീയമായ പെരുമാറ്റം എന്ന് കോടതി നിരീക്ഷിച്ചു.മാതാപിതാക്കളെ അപമാനിച്ചു. മനസിലെ വൃത്തികേടാണ് പുറത്തുവന്നത്.എന്തിന് അനൂകൂല തീരുമാനം എടുക്കണമെന്ന് കോടതി ചോദിച്ചു. ജനപ്രീതിയുണ്ടെന്ന് കരുതി…

[blackhistorychatgpt]

Thurgood Marshall

I wanted to celebrate the legacy of Thurgood Marshall in these dark times, so I asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek to give a majority opinion on the most serious of Trump's executive orders. You can see document of the full results here. You can see my full chat with ChatGPT here.

Here is the full text of the ChatGPT Response:

The Dismantling of Justice: A Response to the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders

By Thurgood Marshall (Post-Retirement Commentary)

The American experiment has always been one of struggle—a struggle between the noble ideals enshrined in our Constitution and the sordid realities of discrimination, disenfranchisement, and injustice. The foundation of our democracy has been tested time and again, and each generation has been called upon to decide whether we will expand liberty and justice or regress into the shadows of inequality. It is with great sorrow and deep concern that I reflect upon the recent actions of President Donald J. Trump, whose swift and sweeping executive orders threaten to undo decades of progress and trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people.

A Retreat from Equality and Justice

Among the most alarming measures is the wholesale dismantling of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The fight for civil rights was never about mere rhetoric; it was about the recognition that systemic inequities exist and must be actively dismantled. By eliminating DEI programs across federal agencies, the administration sends a clear message: the hard-won protections against discrimination are not only expendable but contemptible in the eyes of those who now wield power. This is a direct attack on equal opportunity, and it betrays the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In tandem with these efforts, the administration’s eradication of environmental justice programs underscores its disregard for vulnerable communities. Let us be clear: environmental degradation is not merely an issue of conservation; it is a matter of racial and economic justice. Black and brown communities have disproportionately borne the burdens of pollution, climate disasters, and health hazards. To revoke these protections is not simply an economic decision—it is a declaration that their lives are worth less than corporate profits.

Reversing Hard-Fought Gains in Criminal Justice

Perhaps no action is more regressive than the restoration of for-profit prisons and the reinstatement of the federal death penalty. For decades, we have fought to expose the inequities of a criminal justice system that disproportionately punishes people of color, the poor, and the marginalized. The continuation of private prisons prioritizes profit over rehabilitation, ensuring that incarceration remains an industry rather than a system of justice. Meanwhile, the broad expansion of capital punishment revives a practice rife with racial bias and error. To endorse such policies is to accept a justice system that is neither blind nor fair, but instead one that exacts punishment based on the color of one’s skin and the balance of one’s bank account.

A Blow to Women’s Rights and Bodily Autonomy

In enforcing the Hyde Amendment with renewed vigor, the administration has reinforced a long-standing effort to limit reproductive freedom. The ability to control one’s own body is fundamental to the concept of personal liberty. The law should never be a tool to impose one religious or moral belief upon an entire population. To deny federal funding for essential reproductive healthcare disproportionately impacts low-income women and women of color, making clear that the administration’s concern is not about fiscal responsibility, but about restricting the rights of those who are already among the most vulnerable.

The Threat to Immigrant Communities and the Constitution

No measure is more constitutionally dubious than the attempt to end birthright citizenship—a right explicitly enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The children of immigrants, born on American soil, are no less American than those who trace their lineage to the Mayflower. To strip these individuals of their citizenship is to directly contravene the Constitution itself. Moreover, the authorization of military personnel to enforce immigration laws flirts dangerously with authoritarianism, undermining the very principles upon which this nation was founded.

A Dangerous Path for Free Expression and Academic Freedom

The move to prohibit discussions of identity and power in K-12 education is not an act of patriotism but of censorship. True education is about the pursuit of truth, even when that truth is uncomfortable. Our history is marred by injustice, but to ignore these realities does not erase them—it simply ensures that we repeat them. To criminalize teachers and administrators for affirming the identities of their students is not only cruel but an affront to the fundamental values of free thought and dignity.

Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States

Marshall, J., delivering the opinion of the Court

The Executive Order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship stands as an egregious violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The text of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This language is unambiguous and unequivocal.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), this Court made clear that the principles of jus soli—the right of citizenship by birth on U.S. soil—are fundamental to our nation's legal framework. Any attempt by the Executive to unilaterally rescind this constitutional right, without the due process of law or an act of Congress, is an unconstitutional overreach. The power to amend the Constitution does not rest with the President, nor can it be circumvented by executive fiat.

The Court finds that this Executive Order is null and void, and any federal action taken in furtherance of this unconstitutional directive is hereby enjoined. The principle of equal justice under law demands no less.

The Road Ahead

The measures enacted in these early days of the administration represent more than a policy shift; they are a fundamental redefinition of who we are as a nation. But let us not be mistaken—progress has never been given freely. It has been demanded, litigated, and fought for by generations of Americans who refused to accept injustice as the status quo.

To those who believe in the ideals of equality, justice, and democracy: this is not the time for despair. It is the time for action. The courts remain a critical battleground, and we must challenge these measures with the full force of the law. The people must make their voices heard—not only in the courts but in the streets, in the halls of Congress, and at the ballot box.

History will judge us not by the challenges we faced, but by the courage with which we confronted them. Let us stand firm in the face of injustice, as we always have, and remind this nation that it is not defined by the cruelty of a few, but by the resolve of the many who believe in justice for all.

Sources Used for the Marshall Response

The response was crafted based on my understanding of Thurgood Marshall’s legal philosophy, historical context, and key rulings. Below are some of the major sources and influences used in constructing the response:

Primary Legal Cases & Constitutional Analysis

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) – Established birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – Marshall’s most famous case, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and ended legal segregation.

Furman v. Georgia (1972) – Marshall’s opposition to the death penalty, arguing it was unconstitutional and disproportionately affected marginalized communities.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) – Marshall’s defense of affirmative action and equal opportunity policies.

The Fourteenth Amendment – The legal foundation for equal protection and birthright citizenship, critical to analyzing unconstitutional executive orders.

Thurgood Marshall’s Own Writings and Speeches

A Bicentennial View from the Supreme Court (1987) – Marshall’s speech on the flaws of the original Constitution and the necessity of amendments.

His dissenting opinions in key cases, which shaped the judicial philosophy reflected in the response.

Historical and Legal Scholarship on Thurgood Marshall

Randall Kennedy, Race, Crime, and the Law – Discusses Marshall’s legal arguments against racial discrimination in criminal justice.

Juan Williams, Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary – A detailed biography providing insights into his legal philosophy.

Mark Tushnet, Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1936-1961 – A deep dive into Marshall’s pre-SCOTUS legal battles.

Books About Thurgood Marshall and His Legal Legacy

Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary – Juan Williams

Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America – Wil Haygood

Making Civil Rights Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1936-1961 – Mark Tushnet

Making Constitutional Law: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court, 1961-1991 – Mark Tushnet

Young Thurgood: The Making of a Supreme Court Justice – Larry S. Gibson

Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America – Gilbert King (Pulitzer Prize Winner)

Thurgood Marshall: His Speeches, Writings, Arguments, Opinions, and Reminiscences – Edited by Mark V. Tushnet

Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents – Waldo E. Martin Jr.

Civil Rights and the Promise of Equality – Henry J. Abraham

Marshalling Justice: The Early Civil Rights Letters of Thurgood Marshall – Michael G. Long

Movies, Documentaries, and YouTube Videos About Thurgood Marshall

Marshall (2017) – A feature film starring Chadwick Boseman as Thurgood Marshall, focusing on his early career.

Thurgood (2011) – HBO film starring Laurence Fishburne as Thurgood Marshall, based on a one-man stage play.

Eyes on the Prize (1987) – PBS civil rights documentary series, with episodes discussing Marshall’s work.

Separate But Equal (1991) – A dramatization of the Brown v. Board of Education case, featuring Sidney Poitier as Marshall.

American Experience: The Supreme Court (2007) – PBS series exploring the role of the Supreme Court, featuring Marshall’s legacy.

YouTube: “Thurgood Marshall: A Life in the Law” – A lecture by legal historians discussing his impact.

YouTube: “Thurgood Marshall and the Fight for Civil Rights” – A deep dive into his career and major legal battles.

YouTube: “Thurgood Marshall’s Legacy and the Modern Supreme Court” – A panel discussion featuring legal scholars.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s Thurgood Marshall Tribute – A short documentary highlighting his contributions to civil rights.

Furman v. Georgia Oral Arguments (1972) – Actual footage and audio from Marshall’s opposition to the death penalty.

These resources provide a comprehensive look into Thurgood Marshall’s life, work, and philosophy. Let me know if you need any further recommendations!

Here are five prompts that someone can use to explore and learn more about Thurgood Marshall:

“Analyze Thurgood Marshall’s role in the Brown v. Board of Education case. How did his legal strategy help overturn segregation, and what were the long-term effects of this decision on American society?”

“Compare and contrast Thurgood Marshall’s judicial philosophy with that of his Supreme Court colleagues. How did his views on civil rights, the death penalty, and affirmative action shape the Court’s rulings?”

“Examine Thurgood Marshall’s early legal career with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What were the most significant cases he argued before joining the Supreme Court, and how did they contribute to the broader civil rights movement?”

“Discuss the significance of Thurgood Marshall’s dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. How did his dissents in cases like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez reflect his vision of constitutional justice?”

“Investigate Thurgood Marshall’s impact on American constitutional law. How did his work influence later legal battles over voting rights, police reform, and economic justice?”

These prompts can serve as a starting point for research papers, discussions, or independent study on Thurgood Marshall's legacy. Let me know if you need more tailored prompts!

[umangharyana]

Ration Card 2025: ई-केवाईसी न कराने वालों को राशन बंद, जानें पूरी खबर

Himachal Ration Card 2025: राशन कार्ड न केवल सरकारी योजनाओं का लाभ दिलाने का माध्यम है, बल्कि एक महत्वपूर्ण पहचान पत्र भी है। हिमाचल प्रदेश सरकार ने राशन कार्डधारकों के लिए बड़ा कदम उठाते हुए उन परिवारों का राशन बंद करने का फैसला लिया है, जिन्होंने अभी तक अपने राशन कार्ड को आधार कार्ड से लिंक नहीं कराया है। 1.45 लाख राशन कार्ड हुए रद्द सरकारी आंकड़ों के अनुसार, अब तक 1.45 लाख परिवारों का राशन बंद…