Corrupt US Supreme Court Makes an Unbelievable Decision

Every day now America finds itself in a new nightmare, and today's is something you're expect to see in a truly autocratic country: rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are now effectively subject to the whim of the president. Yes, really, that's what the US Supreme Court ruled today. 

In particular, the SCOTUS case was about birthright citizenship--do individuals born on US soil have the right to be a US citizen? The Constitution unequivocally says yes:

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1

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.

Couldn't be clearer, right?

Not in the eyes of the corrupt US Supreme Court. Today, while not exactly making a decision on this part of the 14th Amendment, they did decide that federal district judges--judges who decide in federal courts all across America--cannot individually decide that a law is unconstitutional or illegal and have that apply to the entire country.

The legality of federal laws can only be decided nationwide by, apparently, the Supreme Court.

This case came up because three federal judges decided that Trump's attempt to end "birthright citizenship" was unconstitutional and ruled his executive order could not go into effect. (Mind you, this was an only an executive order from the President, not even considered by Congress let alone passed, let alone subject to the arduous process for amending the Constitution.) 

Today the Supreme Court decided, 6-3, that federal judges do not have that authority. 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion, said the judiciary does not have “unbridled authority to enforce” the executive’s obligation to follow the law, because doing so would create an “imperial judiciary.” (NY Times, free link)

Instead they decided that the only way to challenge an executive order is if a state challenges it, or a class action lawsuit is filed in a federal court. 

So a woman, undocumented or not, who has a child on US soil and has the child denied US citizenship--which lots of medieval states in the US are very wont to do--has almost no recourse, especially if she is poor. 

The same presumably goes for all other constitutional rights--due process, free speech, gun rights, separation of church and state, free practice of religion, right to peaceably assemble, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to a speedy trail, the law against slavery, the right to vote, woman's suffrage and more can be denied at the whim of the president, at least temporarily (at most forever).

And look at the monstrosity we have as president. 

To be sure, the SCOTUS didn't explicitly rule on birthright citizenship. Maybe they will take that case up next year, maybe never. But they almost don't have to, because plenty of red (extreme conservative) states will be happy to deny birthright citizenship to brown people. 

In dissent Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote (the full paragraph quoting her is from the NY Times):

Those without resources to sue, Jackson wrote in a separate dissent, are disproportionately “the poor, the uneducated and the unpopular,” and so they will be subject to Trump’s whims. “This is yet another crack in the foundation of the rule of law,” she wrote, “which requires equality and justice in its application.” It creates two zones, she said: one where the rule of law prevails, and one “zone of lawlessness” where “all bets are off.” And that’s anathema to the universality of law that the Constitution’s authors envisioned. 

Already the Supreme Court ruled that the president is subject to immunity for his actions. Now he can do whatever he wants with little-to-no recourse by anyone. Jesus Christ.