In Mullin v. Friends of Ruidosa Church, the Supreme Court just lifted the injunction on the Administration’s effort to go forward with the completion of a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas. The issue should not be the policy merits. There are good-faith arguments against the wall in such areas. Indeed, outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) wrote an op-ed against the project. However, the sole question before the Court was the authority of a president to order the construction and use of statutory waivers to do so. Eight out of nine justices voted that “the Government is exceedingly likely to prevail on its argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction.” Once again, the sole holdout was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who did not explain her position.
In its unsigned five-page decision, the eight justices ruled that the 1996 immigration law gave the Homeland Security secretary wide discretion to waive environmental rules. There was no constitutional challenge. Instead, this is a straightforward statutory interpretation matter on whether Congress gave this discretion to the executive branch and whether that authority was then used in conformity with federal law.
Then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem signed the first of three waivers over the Big Bend sector. Secretary Markwayne Mullin continued that policy by signing two additional waivers based on his determination that they were “necessary to ensure expeditious construction” of border barriers under IIRIRA §102(c)(1).
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued the injunction on October 2.
As shown by the eight-justice majority, it is hard to see how Judge Cardone, a George W. Bush nominee, thought that the high standard for this injunction was met. She seemed to delve into policy in finding that Congress likely never authorized waivers in a sector where crossings are so low. That is a judgment on the merits of the waiver that the justices clearly viewed as exceeding the authority of the courts in our system of the separation of powers.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only one who said she would have turned the administration down. She did not explain why.
Justice Jackson’s sole dissents have drawn considerable criticism not only from many experts but also from her conservative and liberal colleagues.
I have previously described some of Jackson’s jurisprudence as “chilling.”
In the injunction litigation in Trump v. CASA, Jackson seemed to go out of her way to echo the “democracy is dying” narrative of the far left in picking up on the “No Kings” theme. She warned about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system.”
She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”
The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happens to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.
Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”
She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Notably, in the calls to pack the Court with a liberal majority, politicians and pundits often point to Biden-appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the model. Jackson has been widely criticized for a radical jurisprudence that discards long-standing norms and doctrines. If that is the model for a new majority on the Court, the far left could well achieve its long agenda on radical changes to our constitutional system.
The sole dissent in this case only magnifies those concerns.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
People think the leftist agenda can’t happen. Sure. And Texas will never flip. It can, and it will happen if we don’t wake up. 2020-24 was just a preview. I’m still stunned we gave the dems power again. We are stupid people.
We are stupid people. You are, not us. You prove it with every comment.
“It’s the [“Crazy Abe” Lincoln], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
I’ve been telling you for years!
Lincoln was the inflection point whereupon America initiated the process of the incremental nullification of its freedom and commenced the “struggle” into communism, for which he was congratulated and commended by none other than Karl Marx in his letter of 1865.
Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional and awaits legislative abrogation and monumental corrective action.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838
Lincoln was.
LDS ANON. TAKE YOUR MEDS
Turley; “the sole holdout was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who did not explain her position”
Of course not. She likely has no explanation. Just fellenzz.
A couple things. Jackson admitted that gender is a matter of biology, not a social construct. That may have been unintentional but there it is.
Second, she is a powerful argument against court packing. That also was likely unintentional, but she does provide a service to the nation in that regard.
please forward your comment to Babylon Bee.
The Babylon Bee is a quality news source.
The Babylon Bee is pure MAGA.
OldManFromKS,
Good observations.
I am interested in why she dissented. Figured she would of used precedent, laws, cited cases to say why she dissented.
Or is this a case of, “That is the way I feel!” opening the door for others on the SC to criticize her opinion.
Oh well. Guess we will never know.
That ^^ was me.
Yeah, Estovir, you’re also Old Man From Kansas,.
And ANON IS A PSYCHO MORON
The “opinion” is NOT final–it was a preliminary order that dissolved a preliminary injunction. The merits of the case remain to be determined, and, at that time, I’m sure Justice Jackson will explain her dissent.
While the Supreme Court merely stayed a preliminary injunction, it is unlikely the case will survive. That’s because the Court concluded that there was no jurisdiction, because the challengers did not raise a constitutional question, and the statute precludes jurisdiction for any other kinds of challenge. So unless the complaint is amended to come up with a constitutional challenge, it should be dismissed on remand.
You are correct that a case on the merits could produce a different result – though in this instance it will not matter – the wall will be completed in this region before the case on the merits is finished.
This decision likely effectively ends the matter – maybe the case proceeds. Possibly not, regardless SCOTUS does not likely see it again.
But yes Jackson does need to explain her dissent. Congress gave the power to build the wall and to grant waivers to the executive.
A preliminary injuction requires a demonstration that the administration is NOT likely to win
Something could change – but the law as it exists is on the administrations side – not the plantifs – that is why the preliminary injunction should not be granted.
I agree, it is a ruling from the so called “Shadow Docket” where rulings are NEVER explained.
When legislation is adopted granting the executive branch conditional waiver authority, the assumption is that that authority will be invoked carefully, thoughtfully and in good faith. I grew up in the Southwest and am quite familiar with the Big Bend Wilderness. The idea that immigration enforcement will be enhanced by the terrible environmental and wildlife carnage produced by this brain dead fencing project is absurd.
the only problem with your comment is that it has nothing to do with the issue before the Court.
It’s in a desert. It’s not that important.
The other problem is that you used the term “carnage” which makes your comment sound polemical and extreme. You sounded reasonable up to that point but then you blew your cover.
Obviously, fictitious disorder imposed on self dominates logical process with created “facts” of environmental imagination.
Perhaps you could explain why you so strongly support the slave trade (most commonly called “sanctuary”) when, by far, those brought in by cartels and other coyote systems are enslaved to repay their “transit fees” – or that those fees are assumed under loan shark arrangements and enslave their friends and family at the origin point? Perhaps you profit from the “government services” which fund these slave plantations through the “take from others” philosophy for housing, welfare, education, and health care which flows through the fingers of the largely urban slave traders who call themselves DEI elected officials by way of payments through THEIR friends and family (usually 90% or more). And even any payments to slaves is sent “home” to benefit the original slave recruiters?
Perhaps you just prefer them to be in infinite slavery – or even more so in human and drug trafficking? Appalling.
If they were free to stay the coyotes would have no hold over them. The larger problem for the immigrants is being exploited by Americans who can threaten to have them deported; this exploitation can also be eliminated by allowing immigrants to legally stay.
The counter argument is simply this – to keep people from being exploited during a shipwreck by those who would charge them to climb into a boat, make it illegal to allow anyone in the water from being allowed into a boat.
@Anon: You didn’t think that one out. “If they were free to stay the coyotes would have no hold over them” Uhm, you think cartel loan sharks, drug dealers, and those with ongoing slave trade connections within the US have no “coyote” control over them? You try borrowing money from the cartels and slave traders and just forget to pay them? Wouldn’t have to worry about your trolling here subsequently. Jeez, wake up!!!
It is absolutely amazing – but no matter what humans do – the environment and wildlife continue to survive and thrive.
This is not a “fence” it is a wall.
The border wall does not 100% stop illegal immigration – but it reduces it, and we already know that the more wall there is the more illegals go where there is no wall.
Pertty sure the envirnment and wildlife will not be happy with possibly 2M people a year trapsing through “Big Bend”
because there is no wall.
BTW can you name a single instance in which a human caused environmental problem actually persisted for multiple decades.
The left which claims to care about nature, is completely clueless about nature.
Absent constant human effort to protect what humans have taken from nature – nature ALWAYS takes it back.
@John Say: This is humor, but thought you might appreciate it. Instance of human created environmental issue? Rabbits in Australia
Was an EIR done, Appleton?
For those who are unfamiliar with the EIR/EIS/ERA(Environmental Review Actions), you may want to explore what we started shoving up the Agriculture industry’s back sides – which has caused more than 180,000 of the smaller multi-generational ag owners to bankrupt or sell off, not to mention the excruciating costs of meat packing, . . . since the Executive Branch policies implemented were initiated by the autopen tyrants. Look up neckties for farming equipment too. Why your food prices have accelerated becomes quite clear. And if you don’t like the resultant Cost of Living, may I recommend moving to California where after 16 years of these totalitarian New World Order oligarchs their resultant success is blatantly apparent?
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/sod/projects/sisk/docs/esm/what-is-eis-eir.pdf
Your argument rests on an assumption that Congress did not write into the statute. Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, as amended by the REAL ID Act, expressly grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to waive legal requirements that the Secretary determines necessary, in his or her sole discretion, to expedite border-barrier construction. Congress did not condition that authority on obtaining the approval of environmental activists or satisfying the subjective expectations you have attributed to legislators. 90 FR 57089+1
More importantly, you appear to confuse the environmental consequences of construction with the legitimacy and effectiveness of its purpose. Congress expressly authorized physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to deter illegal crossings and achieve operational control of the border. These are not merely decorative fences. They are components of a broader border-security system. 90 FR 57089+1
Your familiarity with Big Bend Wilderness is likewise not evidence that the project is unnecessary, that its environmental consequences are as catastrophic as you allege, or that border enforcement cannot be enhanced by physical barriers. Calling the project an environmental catastrophe does not establish one. Calling it brain-dead certainly establishes nothing.
If you contend that the environmental damage outweighs the security benefits, make that case with verifiable evidence. Identify the specific damage, quantify its extent, and explain why alternative security measures would achieve the same objectives.
Personal familiarity with a wilderness area is not a substitute for statutory interpretation, empirical evidence, or a reasoned assessment of national-security requirements. And dismissing a congressionally authorized undertaking with insults is no substitute for an argument.
How many times have you celebrated the Great Wall of China?
The good professor notes, “Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition:”
1996 update: “Justice Barrett clearly ha[s] had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own ambition:
As someone who has visited Big Bend, the idea of building a wall along the Rio Grande is a travesty, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decisions. This is a generally isolate area and there are very few crossings there, but the real issue is the spoiling of the beauty of the region. A wall across Elena Canyon? Spare me! This is why Republicans lost the election.
Not to mention an ecological catastrophe. Neither the GOP nor Trump has any concern for wildlife corridors, nor have they spent any time trying to understand the disruption their walls create with respect to animal movement and migration. These studies have been done. The data is there. They simply do not care about being good stewards of the environment.
Another tribune for the snail darter.
the only problem with your comment is that it has nothing to do with the issue before the Court.
It’s not that they don’t care about the environment – they are intentionally hostile to it. Can’t be an endangered species if all the members are dead. With nothing to protect it opens the land to be used to dump toxic waste in the open. They dream of being the ones to kill and possibly to eat the last specimen. It gets their names in the books forever.
“It’s not that they don’t care about the environment – they are intentionally hostile to it.”
Correct – nature CONSTANTLY tries to kill EVERYTHING that is in it. Everything dies. It takes enormous amounts of effort for ANYTHING to survive – and then only for the norm of its life span – it still ends up Dead.
That is how nature works – it tries to kill humans, other animals, all other life – and it always wins – nothing survives forever.
I can appreciate the beauty of Nature – and I can even do it at Frank Llyod Wrights Falling water.
But that does not change the fact that nature is inherently hostile to all life.
The dumping of toxic waste is pretty close to universally driven by Government – the worst disasters – like Love canal were driven by WWII or by post WWII military production or late the cold war.
Businesses tend not to pollute for long – one of the corollaries to the laws of supply and demand is that supply creates its own demand.
There are very few places that have recycling laws that apply to business – they are not needed.
Businesses always recycle.
Chickens go into Tyson plants – 99.5% of what goes in comes out as a product.
If a mexican farmer has a chicken dinner – 50% of the chicken is waste.
When a factory produces large quantities of something toxic – that company looks either to seel that byproduct or to use it to make something else. If it costs $50/ton to dispose of something toxic and you can convert it into a new product that Loses $40/ton – you are actually saving money.
John Say, what a load of BS.
Your claim that Love Canal was “driven by Government” is a complete rewriting of history. The federal Superfund program was created precisely because Love Canal was a catastrophic failure of unchecked corporate dumping.
The military did not pollute Love Canal. From 1942 to 1953, a private corporation—the Hooker Electrochemical Company—dumped over 21,000 tons of highly toxic, carcinogenic industrial waste directly into that canal. To avoid future legal liability, Hooker Chemical covered the landfill with dirt and sold the land to the local school board for exactly one dollar, explicitly inserting a clause into the deed to absolve themselves of any future lawsuits regarding the buried chemicals.
When that toxic sludge eventually leaked into the basements, schoolyards, and drinking water of neighborhood families in the 1970s, it wasn’t the market or “supply and demand” that cleaned it up. It took a federal emergency declaration and the passage of the Superfund Act (CERCLA) to force corporate polluters to pay for the damage. Using Love Canal to argue that private businesses don’t pollute is a spectacular failure of historical fact.
This would be the same people who think the WH must remake untouvhed for another 200 years, and that the Kennedy center should rot in place rather than have Trump put his fingerprints on it.
If the rest of the wall is completed – there will be crossings where there is no wall.
Nature will do fine – it is not like the Great Wall of China destroyed China.
Humans have built things throughout the planet.
And that is GOOD – unless you would prefer to continue living in caves.
The Obama library looks like a turd from a star wars imperial cruiser – are you complaining about that ?
Everything humans do impacts nature, and nature impacts us right back.
Missing from those on the left is that humans are also a part of nature – and just like birds build their nests – Humans build to meet our needs.
Still nature.
You miss the point about building a wall in that area entirely.
There’s no justification for the damage and cost to prevent less than 1% of total border crossings. Within the 118 miles of Big Bend National Park itself, Border Patrol agents apprehended just 200 people during the entire fiscal year 2025—making up only 0.045% of the national total.
It’s a huge waste of money and resources and damage for a wall that is practically irrelevant now.
It is noteworthy that the subject provisions of the IIRIRA (under §102) were part of the original law passed in 1996 and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton; nor were these specific provisions removed or amended during Obama’s eight years.
Professor Turley did not mention the actual legal issue here. The statute denies courts jurisdiction to hear challenges to these waivers except on the basis of the US constitution. The challengers argued, and the district court agreed, that raising the “major questions doctrine” was a constitutional challenge because it is grounded in the separation of powers, a constitutional principle. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that, though intended to help preserve the separation of powers, the doctrine is a principle of statutory interpretation, and the question it helps answer is whether the executive action is within the authority conferred by the statute, not whether the action is permitted by the constitution. On this basis, the Supreme Court concluded that the courts had no jurisdiction, because there was no constitutional challenge.
And just to close the loop, the Supreme Court also said that it has long held that the question whether an executive action is authorised by a statute is not a constitutional question. Otherwise, I suppose every question of statutory authority could be viewed as a constitutional separation of powers question.
yes, that is precisely what the Court noted, and I referred to (page 3)
Lin, I wasn’t disagreeing with you at all. My only point was that Professor Turley’s article did not actually identify the precise legal question in the opinion.
Professor Turley was too distracted knocking down Justice Jackson and bringing up criticisms of her from a completely different case.
you’re playing georgie’s game of changing the issue or thrust of the comment to which you respond. so easy to see.
Daniel: I went back and read your two comments again. Nothing I said is contrary to your words OR the Court’s rendering. I still don’t understand your comment, sorry, fellow-commenter???
??? Sorry, Daniel, don’t understand what you are saying.
my comment, I am talking about {my words} “subject provisions” under 102 (c), –as referenced by the Court. Its entire ruling is premised around 102(c), and that such provision(s) is/are NOT NEW amendments; that’s all I said, no more no less?
Lin, nope.
When President Bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996, Section 102 did not grant the executive branch the sweeping power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction or unilaterally erase every law in the country.
Originally, Section 102 only authorized the Attorney General to waive two specific statutes—the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—and only for a specific 14-mile stretch of fencing near San Diego. It did not include the broad jurisdiction-stripping language used to insulate the government today.
The radical, unreviewable version of the waiver authority at the center of the Mullin case was actually created by the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Not Clinton.
Congress heavily amended IIRIRA Section 102(c) via the REAL ID Act. They expanded the language to allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive “all legal requirements” (meaning any local, state, or federal law) at their “sole discretion”.
Under the 2008 appropriations act the law was amended again.
Congress amended Section 102 to change the rigid mandate regarding where fences had to be built, replacing specific geographic mandates with a broader requirement to construct at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing where DHS deemed necessary.
The Obama administration actively utilized these exact REAL ID Act waivers to complete hundreds of miles of border fencing throughout his two terms, meaning the administration was deeply involved in applying and navigating the limits of the amended statute, rather than it sitting idly on the books as an unchanged 1996 artifact.
X: Please….just…..stop.
Here is the statute, with amendments through 2012 (Obama administration) Notice that it contains the relevant subsection (c)(2). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-13677/pdf/COMPS-13677.pdf
Upstate is right, I should just stop trying to help you screw your head back on right.
Lin,
Yesterday had an interesting day in class. Professor walked in, and I could tell there was something . . . different. She started off by rather than asking a question from the reading in general for anyone in the class to answer, she picked specific people to answer. The deer in head lights look was amazing. She could not answer the question. I noted others in the class began to shift in their seats and the feel of sudden fear was in the air.
I am guessing, some were using AI to answer the pre-class questions to the assigned reading.
I offered to answer the question, and got a sharp “Quiet!” look from the professor as I often answer questions.
She asked two others. The one just stammered the other looked like she was going to burst into tears.
Yeah, GSX thinks he is smug and it makes him smart to use AI. But if he were to even try to have a debate with a real lawyer, such as the good professor or yourself, he would have the same deer in headlights look or even about to cry. Likely try to change the subject, focus on some verbiage to change the subject, talk in circles or just make up stuff. He is quite well known for it.
Just scroll past. Not even worth reading let alone responding to. Hear the village idiot once, no need to hear the village idiot a second time.
George X, as usual, showing its stupidity for all to see, X, get a gun, shot your self. Please.
Lin, pointing to a document explicitly labeled as “amended” does not save your original claim—it completely destroys it. This is a classic attempt to move the goalposts.
Your original premise was that these exact provisions “were part of the original law passed in 1996 and signed into law by Democrat President Clinton.” When called out on that historical falsehood, you swapped out the historical timeline and linked a PDF of the statute “As Amended Through 2012”.
Look at the very first page of the document you just pasted. The header explicitly states: “[As Amended Through P.L. 112-176, Enacted September 28, 2012]”. You are handing me a heavily revised, edited document from the Obama era to try and prove what Bill Clinton signed in 1996.
You seem to be confused by how federal codification works. Just because the title of the original framework remains “The Act of 1996” at the top of the page, that does not mean everything underneath it was written in 1996. The sweeping “all legal requirements” waiver power and the draconian jurisdiction-stripping language in subsection (c)(2) were physically inserted into this text by the REAL ID Act of 2005—written by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
Bill Clinton never signed these judicial restrictions, and providing a post-2005 amended version of the text doesn’t change history. Before you tell anyone else to “screw their head back on right,” you should learn how to read the amendments header on your own link.
You’re not doing a great job defending your mistake. You only made it worse. Thanks.
Lin is right.
Clinton signed the law.
102(c) was NOT removed or objected to during subsequent Obama terms.
what is your problem, boy?
No, she was not right.
My problem is too many people can’t make arguments with substance or proper context.
YOU are not reading for comprehension.
X/George/clown
Here, since you seem to have some reading comprehension problems reading STATUTEs, here is a CRS report explaining the RealID provisions affecting 102(c), including
“This report analyzes the major provisions of the REAL ID Act, as enacted, which, inter alia, (3) provides additional waiver authority over laws that might impede the expeditious construction of barriers and roads along land borders,”
“Changes Made by the REAL ID Act: Section 102 of the REAL ID Act amends the relevant IIRIRA provision to authorize (but not require, as in earlier versions) the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements as he determines necessary, in his sole discretion, to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads under IIRIRA § 102. The term “legal requirements” refers to any local, state or federal statute, regulation, or administrative order..Congress intends to prevent a flurry of lawsuits challenging waiver decisions from hindering construction of the barrier and defeating the purpose of the waiver.”
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32754.html#fn66
ROFL!!
God you’re a moron. Learn to read man.
All you did was support MY point.
The original claim was that these specific provisions were part of the original 1996 law signed by Bill Clinton. Yet, the text you just quoted is literally under the heading: “Changes Made by the REAL ID Act.”
The keyword there is “amends.” The 2005 REAL ID Act—passed by a Republican Congress and signed by George W. Bush—physically changed the 1996 framework. It was the 2005 amendment that created the “all legal requirements” standard and stripped the lower courts of jurisdiction to prevent what your source calls a “flurry of lawsuits.”
georgie’s AI let him down. THis is what it said, “Yes, Section 102 was part of the original Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) enacted in 1996. It grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to install physical barriers and roads to deter illegal crossings at the U.S. border. The Federal Register Wikipedia
Hello X:
Am reading your comment now again, and with a little more explanation beyond my brief original response, may I ADD that it appears in your endeavor to fault me, you did not follow your own advice about reading comprehension.
Please go back and note that I mentioned 102, not 102(c) in the original comment that you objected to, -a completely correct statement. And as others have aptly noted, the REAL ID law expanded, not diminished the authority (now 102(c) –YEARS before Obama, and again, Congress under Obama did not alter or remove those provisions. So it looks like you were looking awful hard to find something to criticize but again failed….. And what was your point again? Did I miss something? Sorry if I did. thanks anyway.
Lin, hiding behind a broad section number doesn’t save your argument; it just proves you don’t know how federal statutes work.
Subsections aren’t optional details—they ARE the law. Section 102 is just a general category heading. The entire basis of Jonathan Turley’s article, the Mullin case, and our entire discussion centers on the unreviewable “all legal requirements” waiver power. Those specific mechanisms exist exclusively within subsection (c)(2).
In your very first comment, you explicitly wrote that “the subject provisions” were signed into law by Bill Clinton. Those “subject provisions”—the power to strip federal courts of jurisdiction and erase dozens of environmental laws—did not exist anywhere in Section 102 when Clinton signed it in 1996. They were written and inserted into subsection (c) by a Republican Congress under the REAL ID Act of 2005.
You can’t claim Clinton signed a power into law in 1996 just because a completely different administration used the same paragraph numbers to expand executive power a decade later. First you moved the goalposts by linking an “Amended” 2012 document, and now you’re trying to erase subsections entirely to cover up your mistake. Just admit you got the history wrong and move on.
Reading through comments here, George/X/AI whatever, you really deserve the smirks that you acquire here.
You seem to try to keep your argument alive by creating things said that were never said. Looks like “Lin” said that this issue was not anything new, that the “power” provisions of S. 102 had been around since 1996. Did she say more? Nope. Did you infer more in order to fashion some kind of attack? Yup.
Looks like she later answered you by pointing this out, but you continued to try to save your face by weaving a trap totally imagined by you and creating arguments that never existed..
Yes, the Real ID law CLARIFIED judicial review of environmental waivers, even in Congressional notes referring to it as prophylactic to avoid future challenges. But that wasn’t the point. You tried to make it a point. Her/his/Lin’s point was that neither Clinton nor Obama challenged the provisions.
I think you have an admiration crush on Lin, male or female. You seem to want to copy a lot of her/his words and phrases, including your latest from Lin’s “Oh please.” Lin must live in your brain for sure. So you facetiously think you can destroy Lin. Pretty funny.
I write this because every time I visit this site, there is an outpouring of criticism for you.
Why is that?
Have a nice day
^^^BTW, wasn’t sure how to sign in here, I wanted to sign in as “George’s nemesis.” I’ll try again.
^^ I tried to sign in with the name “George’s Nemesis” but I do not know how to sign in with a name. I hate anonymous.
X – can you read your own writing ?
Aside from Spin you are just arguing over which law granted the president the greatest amount of power.
None of it changes the amount of power that the president has to grant waivers, and that is why SCOTUS threw this out.
From the 1980’s through the present – the Southern border WALL – not “fence” has been a GOP priority – it was a condition on every single grant of amnesty or other grant of residence of citizenship for illegal aliens in the past.
The Fact that 40+ years later there is no wall is just evidence that Democrats do not keep their promises or agreements – not then, not now.
John, you are rewriting history, as you usually do, to fit your twisted political narrative. The actual timeline of border policy completely refutes your claims.
First, when Ronald Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty bill (IRCA), a continuous southern border “wall” wasn’t a GOP priority, nor was it written into the law. The enforcement strategy back then focused on employer sanctions and boosting Border Patrol agents—not building a 2,000-mile physical barrier.
Second, your claim that “no fencing or wall was built because Democrats broke promises” is completely false. Following the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the federal government successfully completed over 650 miles of reinforced physical fencing and vehicle barriers. That infrastructure was built and finalized during the Bush and Obama administrations.
Finally, the Supreme Court didn’t lift the Big Bend injunction because they agreed with the “amount of power” the president has; they did it because the 2005 REAL ID Act explicitly stripped lower courts of the jurisdiction to review statutory complaints. Brushing past a massive constitutional shift in executive power as mere “spin” shows you are ignoring the actual legal text of the case.
As usual, you’re wrong.
Myself and numerous others below point out YOUR repeated errors.
You have a variety of ways of mangling reality to bend it to your wishes – but all are deceipt.
One law is not all laws, You engage in classic bait and switch.
You either lie or you are too stupid to read the very sources YOU cite.
No nordic country is above the US in the 2026 index of economic freedom.
Absolutely there is a great deal of economic freedom in nordic countries, and absolutely they are not socialist or socialst democracies.
Regardless – the definition of socialism is entirely irrelevant – the polices that the US left seeks to enact are the same ones that have resulted in Europe falling behind the US. Yes, Sweden in doing better than Mississippi – the worst US state. But Germany – the most populous state in the EU is not.
Right now in Europe we have an ascendant right – MAYBE that right is MAGA like – or maybe it is a return of fascism – that is not clear yet.
What is clear is that it is the failure of the left that has caused that.
But it is not just left vs. right in Europe – we have violence and rioting all over – Socialist vs socialist.
Europe is in bad shape and has a dim future – and there is not a conservative within a million miles you can blame that on.
Is Europe socialist or social democratic or something else ? Why do those lables matter – it is failing regardless of labels, and it is failing as it pursues the same politics that YOU wish to inflict on the US.
Though there is not consequential rioting in the streets yet – Canada is not far behind.
Unemployment in canada is 50%+ higher than the US – Inflation is about the same as the US, and the rate of rise in standard of living is 0.8% – not even 1%
Canada is slightly better than the EU – but not close to the US.
Here is the whole world in GDP per capita or Standard of living.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_nominal_world_map_2026.svg
You constantly try to argue semantic – Badly.
Regardless of labels the US continues to outperform the rest of the world.
Further right now, the US economy is the strongest in the world, even other nations with standards of living that are close are falling behind.
ROFL!! Nope. What is interesting is you’re the one engaging on crazy spin and semantics.
You claim no Nordic country is above the U.S. in economic freedom. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, multiple Nordic countries—specifically Denmark and Sweden—routinely rank higher than the United States in overall economic freedom, driven by their superior property rights, judicial effectiveness, and fiscal health.
Your Own Source Disproves Your GDP Claim: You linked a 2026 IMF/Wikipedia nominal GDP per capita map to argue the U.S. outperforms the rest of the world. Open your own link. The 2026 data shows that Norway ($115,188), Iceland ($107,464), and Denmark ($82,713) are tightly clustered with or completely exceeding the United States ($95,212). Furthermore, Germany ($65,699) easily outpaces the vast majority of U.S. states.
As for the rest of your comment—the random doomsday rants about European collapse, phantom riots in Canada, and rewriting the definition of fascism—I’ll leave those to your personal diary. If you are going to insult someone’s intelligence, at least make sure your own sources don’t publicly contradict your argument.
That was really bad.
DFTT – irrelevant side tracking is the only think a troll with equivalent IQ and shoe size knows how to do.
Presumably the upcoming congress will repeal IIRIRA in total or part. Perhaps congress will delete the border. Is it constitutional to do? Ah, veto.
The reason Jackson did not give any explanation is because she is incapable of concocting one.
Nope. She’s not required to give one. A simple dissent is all she needs.
Define a woman.
A human adult without Y chromosomes.
A human adult
withoutlacking Y chromosomes.X = retard. Every comment proves it.
Required – no, but when you standa alone – not even your fallow left wing nuts stand with you – it is reasonable to expect an explanation unless you want labled a nut job.
John Say, really? You know justices Thomas and Alito have also dissented without offering any explanation either.
Who stands with who is irrelevant. Besides my assumption seems to be correct given the nature of the ruling. It’s clearly on a narrow technicality the liberal institutionalists felt bound to follow. That doesn’t mean they thought the lower court’s legal reasoning on the merits was wrong. Jackson merely dissented which is her prerogative.
There’s the racism and misogyny I expect from the average Turley reader. Lovely.
I’m not a biologist. Jackson is a racist and misogynist. She has a wooden head.
It’s ironic, I know, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t give a crap for the Constitution.
It’s beginning to look like the election really was an extinction level event for the GOP. They finally paid the price for hitching their wagon to Trump and the MAGA cult. It is not just the federal elections.
As of late Monday, the Democrats have flipped 549 state legislative seats from Republican to Democrat, flipped control of 12 chambers and broken up 13 Republican supermajorities. They’ve also created at least six new Democratic trifectas, meaning in those states, Democrats will control the House, the Senate and the governorship. Democratic trifectas now outnumber GOP trifectas nationally, 22 to 19.
For the first time in a long time, Democrats control more state legislatures than the GOP.
Yup. Now watch those Democrat controlled states become worse places to live as they pass the DSA cult socialism laws.
Are you speaking of Texas, which is now officially a blue state? How ironic tha poor widdle Elon Musk moved to Texas from California because he didn’t want to pay taxes, and now, Texas has gone blue.
Is Jackson living freedom and not liberty? It’s a time to live your freedom when murderers can murder freely. It’s a time to freely be yourself. Jackson said the Justice position is merely a platform from which she can express herself. So, it is.
OT: The “Peoples House” is used by the left. After giving some thought I find it similar to the National People’s Congress of communist fame, China. It’s the communist political system. Communism was selected because it’s the most perverse choice and what patriots would hate most.
Jackson is merely perverse. She’s much like Sam Altman and the gods…
Ciao, the weather is gorgeous where I am. Issac Perlman’s violin is still wonderful, and I can still listen to Luciano Pavarotti and recommend the Russian, Pletnev.
This decision is NOT a final decision on the merits–Turley knows that–it is PRELIMINARY. But MAGA world never misses an opportunity to criticize Democrats or Justice Jackson, who is the most-qualified person ever to ascend to the bench.
Turley complains of “court packing”, ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS is already packed–with radical right-wingers, many of whom subscribe to the Project 2025 unitary executive theory–that the POTUS has the most power. Barrett’s comments and the lifting of the injunction that was issued by a Bush appointee reflect that. Let’s not forget facts–when Scalia died, McConnell denied Obama a SCOTUS pick allegedly because of the proximity of the election–Scalia died in February, 2016–the election was in November, 11 months away. But, after Ginsberg died in September of 2020, with the election TWO MONTHS away, that rule was tossed and Barrett was shoved onto the SCOTUS. Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were all selected by the Leo Leonard Federalist Society specifically because they would overturn Roe v. Wade, and each of them claimed they would honor stare decisis–and proceeded to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway.
WHY do we allegedly need a border wall that will do environmental damage if Trump isn’t lying about there being no “illegal” immigration? WHY should Homeland Security be able to “waive” environmental regulations to protect an area where crossings are so low? So the radicals on the SCOTUS believe that the POTUS has this power–well, at least the Bush appointed judge disagrees. But look at the hateful comments this post has produced.
Looks like Gigi/Natasha is back.
Really …? “The most- [sic] qualified person to ascend to the bench.” Seriously? Folks like Ramsey are the reason why Ben Franklin uttered his “a Republic if you can keep it ,,,” warning in 1787.
Really …? “The most- [sic] qualified person to ascend to the bench.” Seriously? Folks like Ramsey are the reason why Ben Franklin uttered his “a Republic if you can keep it ,,,” warning in 1787.
–sometimes you have to wonder if some of the comments here are actually believed by their authors or instead just an attempt at provocation. I am glad to see that most responses remain calm and measured.
Modern dems are insane. That is a complete sentence. They are absolutely modern fascists. Why is anyone surprised anymore? Seriously. This is getting very old when our survival is on the line. Wake up.
No, they’re not.
What I like about the Court’s ruling is that it appears to have, arguendo and preemptively, addressed the merits of a prospective new argument fashioned around the constitutional avoidance issue, noting on pages 3 and 4 both the economic and political harms (major questions doctrine) facing the government without a stay. I suspect the same government harms arguments could and will be invoked and explored in its eventual responsive petition for writ.
I hate it when you make me look stuff up.
s
Constitutional avoidance issue being IIRIRA?
so, it is.
Major questions doc coming right up (maybe). There are all of the impeachments to do.
One thing on which we all can agree … Ketanji Brown Jackson’s smile is as big and bright as Barak Hussein Obama’s smile.
I’m going to drift off onto a tangent here.
What if a Supreme Court of the United States Justice ran for President ???
[e.g.: SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett for President 2028]
I realize that the likelihood of a SCOTUS Justice stepping out to run for the office of the President would be far fetched, but it is probable.
After seeing Bobby Pulido a Highschool Grad and Tejano Quinceañera & Wedding singer turned politician who won election to the U.S. House of Representatives for Texas’s 15th congressional district, anything is possible. It is also probable that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson could ditch the SCOTUS and bailout to run for the Presidency
The though can be amusing and sickening at the same time.
Have a nice day Y’all !!!
Actually it would be a direct violation of the canon of ethics. She would need to resign the Court to run for any political office.
“She would need to resign the Court“…
OK – Lets get her 2028 Campaign rolling !!!
There should be some kind of “equality of outcome” when it comes to Supreme Court decisions to keep the Archie Bunkers happy.
What’s wrong with Archie Bunker?
Purple X, Lin, Dr Zee, Diogenes, Old Man From Kansas, Vicente and Maimie Fish are all ESTOVIR.
This clump of puppets shows just how much one person is warping these discussions.
All those people are different people. If anyone is warping the discussion it is you with your delusions that they are all the same person.
No, Estovir, it’s YOU.
False, but does it matter ?
There IS. Separate the actual jurists from the “dingbats,” but give each the opportunity to speak.
I was translating.
A supposedly highly-educated person who cannot define what a woman is, is patently unqualified to be a judge–at any court level.
The fact that Ketanji-Jackson was confirmed by the Senate as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court is symbolic of the political madness to which this nation has succumbed.
I have said it before, and will say it again: This nation is doomed. I’m glad that I’m an old man and hopefully will not live long enough to see the worst of it.
It is looking scary, Dr. Zee. What is there left to fight for? If the left is correct, America is overpopulated by subhuman racists, and the only right thing is to wreck America. That seems to be the plan, and that’s not worth fighting for. And if the left is wrong, they are the most disgusting liars ever elected. They are not worth fighting for. Either way, it’s not worth it. That’s the internal contradiction of these leftists controlling America.
I can’t imagine Sayed or AOC every risking their skins for us. Quite the opposite. All a decent man can do is protect his family as best he can while the West burns down around him. Where do you go when the whole world becomes third world?
DrZee – I am also old and not particularly scared for myself; if I die tomorrow I feel thankful for the life I’ve had. But what about our kids and grandkids who still, Lord willing, have a lot of life to live? What would your advice be?
(NotSoOld: this is technically OT so I will make it brief. I am clearly a later boomer, and I regret that kids and grandkids might not appreciate the boomer era: https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/boomer-nostalgic-photos-fs?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
@oldmanfromkansas–
I daily thank God–although I am pretty much an agnostic–that I have no progeny.
(And so, you might well ask me, why do I pray to, or thank, a God that may well not exist? Well, there ain’t no atheists in foxholes, and I believe that we are truly at war with the Looney Left for the future of this country and for the futures of your children and grandchildren. Hope springs eternal in me, and I hope that if there actually is an afterlife, any “judgement” of me won’t be too harsh!)
And so, what advice would I give to your progeny?
Become educated at universities that are as DEI-free as possible (difficult, I know!), and get degrees–and advanced degrees, if possible–in the hard sciences, technology, engineering and/or mathematics (the STEM disciplines). Ignore the “soft sciences,” e.g., sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology, etc. Absolutely stay away from any and all gender, ethnic, racial, or other grievance “studies.” And while I very much respect history and English as “majors,” stay away from them too, as they will be of no help when seeking future employment. (Although being able to write well was invaluable to me when authoring future journal articles, conference papers, corporate reports, Letters to the Editor and Guest Editorials at the local newspapers, etc.)
Where necessary, keep your heads down in voicing your own conservative values (if any) and “play the game” wherever necessary to get out of your university with your degree(s).
Hypocritical, I acknowledge, but necessary, nevertheless.
I hope that this brief body of advice will be useful.
I wish you and all of your progeny all the best in these troubled American times.
@oldmankansas–
I sent some advice but it seems not to have been published. Will try again later.
How many times do you MAGAs have to be reminded of the FACTS? Hillbilly “Senator” Marsha Blackburn tried a “gotcha” on Justice Jackson by demanding that she define “woman”–because there would be cases involving transgenders coming before the SCOTUS, and that her answer WOULD BE used against her. Justice Jackson demurred, which is what any savvy person would do.
Justice Jackson is the best–qualified person ever to be nominated to the SCOTUS. Her background: graduated from Harvard magna cum laude, and from Harvard Law cum laude. At Harvard, she was the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review. She was a Clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, then became a federal public defender. She was appointed to the US. Sentencing Commission. After that, she was a federal judge at the District of Columbia and then was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the DC. Circuit.
Marsha Blackburn? She was a Home Economics major.
Gigi/Natasha is back. Has to change her name again as she has no credibility.
What was actually said at the Senate confirmation hearings,
During her confirmation hearing, she was asked by Senator Marsha Blackburn if she could define “woman.” Jackson responded, “I can’t,” stating, “I’m not a biologist,”
Harvard: Where grade inflation is a open secrete.
So much for being “savvy.” More like, “Hey, world! Look at what an idiot I am!”
Grade inflation would not earn you “cum laude” or other such honorific designations, which are comparative. Grade inflation and DEI would not earn you an Editor position on Law Review, or a judicial clerkship, or a federal District judgship or a seat on a federal circuit court.
At Harvard, yes, grade inflation and DEI would get you those things.
Who it would not get those things are whites and Asians.
You apparently actually believe that MAGA swill. It’s this simple: IF there is “grade inflation”, then EVERYONE’s grades would be inflated. The honorifics are comparative: the very top receives “summa cum laude”, next is “magna cum laude”, and after that is “cum laude”.
You can’t even get invited to write or edit for law review unless you have the grades— you have to be in the top percentage of your class according to the rules of the particular school.
Federal clerkships are very highly competitive—because they lead to associate positions at prestigious law firms that pay the highest salary. I left out part of Justice Jackson’s resume— she also was an associate at a prestigious law firm.
None of the other Justices has anywhere near Justice Jackson’s depth and breadth of experience—as a federal public defender, federal district court judge, federal appeals court judge and in private practice. She has a much more prestigious resume than Turley.
You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
“IF there is “grade inflation”, then EVERYONE’s grades would be inflated.”
BS.
It’s called “race norming,” and has long been a staple of affirmative action inflate grades for certain minorities. There is also grade inflation in particular departments and courses — what are known on campus as “easy A’s.”
“Grade inflation would not earn you “cum laude” . . .”
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Some 50% of Harvard undergrads get the “honor” of a “laude.” (It used to be some 90%.) It’s a participation trophy.
“DEI would not earn you an Editor position on Law Review . . .”
And you clearly don’t know how affirmative action works in academia, which in this case amounts to: We have five candidates for Editor. Pick her because she’s a black woman — which is the same sexist and racist reason Biden chose her for the Supreme Court.
She MAY be the most qualified female candidate of color ever to be nominated to the Supreme Court, but by virtue of Biden‘s limitation on the pool of candidates he opted to choose from, Brown cannot be deemed the best qualified candidate EVER. There may be a white female or male out there who far surpasses her..
marsha blackburn is not a judge, let alone a SCOTUS jurist. She represents the PEOPLE in her district.
and what was your point again?
Blackburn is a MAGA. She was trying to set up Justice Jackson with a “gotcha” question about defining “woman”, knowing that transgender cases would be coming before the SCOTUS, so that whatever her response, it would be used against her. So, Justice Jackson wisely declined to answer, and MAGAverse uses that against her, too. Tell me: what does defining “woman” have to do with being qualified to sit on the SCOTUS?
sorry, your evasion does not work. You compared Jackson’s formal education and experience with Blackburn’s. I responded accordingly. It received a great deal of coverage, as you know…
If you would like me to enumerate the dozens of vacuous “gotcha” attempts by Democrat members of congress to Trump’s SCOTUS nominees, I will gladly accept your challenge. Meanwhile, I will move on. thanks anyway.
Blackburn was playing a MAGA game–trying to set up a prospective SCOTUS Justice with a trick question that would work against her no matter what her answer would be or if she declined to answer. Blackburn was not representing her constituents when she asked this question. When did any Democrat ask one of Trump’s nominees a “gotcha” question? To remind you–Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh all claimed that Roe v. Wade was “law of the land” and that they would honor stare decisis–they each lied. They were each first vetted by Leo Leonard’s ultra right-wing Federalist Society.
As noted above by someone, I do believe GIgi/Natasha is back. THere are several criticisms to your “comment,” but you chose only to address mine, twice. hmmmmm
If you were a good lawyer, you might look to the reasons why members of SCOTUS who believe in stare decisis might nonetheless void or reverse old precedent: consistency with other more recent decisions; developments since; new technology, etc. Look it up, thanks.
The nominations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett didn’t come out of the blue—they came from Leo Leonard’s Federalist Society—vetted and chosen specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade and to support the Project 2025 agenda.
Trump didn’t know who any of these people were. Their presence on the highest court will always have a foul odor —not just because they lied about their position on abortion rights, but, in the case of Barrett and Gorsuch, Republicans made up rules to shove them onto the court and they denied President Obama his right to make a nomination.
Republicans prevented 25 or so witnesses from testifying about Kavanaugh and shoved through his nomination, too. More stench.
And, no— there was no good faith reason for Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to reverse their position on abortion rights that they testified about during their confirmation hearings—society, technology, values, etc hadn’t changed. Most Americans did and still do support a woman’s right to choose to the age of fetal viability.
Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh were determined to say whatever they had to in order to get onto the high court. Just like Trump lied about bringing down the cost of groceries and energy and “no new wars” just to get elected. The results of the midterms were a referendum on Trump, his corruption and his lies—voters are upset and have had enough.
Are you being serious?
That was not “wisely.” That was dumb. If you do not have a basic understanding of biology, cannot not define what a woman is, understand the biological differences in sex organs, XX and XY chromosomes, then no, you are not qualified to sit on the SC.
And pointing out she went to Harvard, but still could not define what a woman is, then guess what . . . Harvard is clearly not the Ivy League university it once was. And there is that handing out grades thing that the good professor has pointed out in the past.
Then again, we are talking about the same ideology that thinks there are some 97 different genders, children can wake up one morning and decide they are of the opposite sex or even a cat. 2 + 2 = 5. Math is racist. A fetus knows if it is trans or not. Guess what, that is what Democrats voted for.
@Maria Ramsey–
Ketanji-Brown didn’t decline to answer because she was concerned that transgender cases might appear before her once she sat on the SCOTUS, as you bogusly aver.
Instead, Ketanji-Brown actually gave a cutsie answer meant to reassure the DEI crowd that she was, indeed, one of them.
Your “explanation” simply doesn’t wash.
@Marcia Ramsey–
Yes, certainly on paper Justice Jackson appeared to be supremely qualified. In fact, she is simply a product of the nutcase DEI crowd who have steadily infiltrated–and now completely dominate–our educational system from top to bottom.
Again, I have to ask–and now ask you particular–how can such a highly educated person, whether or not she is a “biologist,” be unable to define in simple layman’s terms what a woman is?
Here’ are some hints: A woman is the female of the human species, who has two X chromosomes (i.e., “XX”), has a vagina, a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and a cervix. They are capable of giving birth to human life, and do not have penises.
QED.
I didn’t have to be a biologist to understand these facts, and, in fact, I am not: I’m just a highly educated physical scientist.
What are you other than just another “educated”–and I now use that term quite loosely– DEI bootlicker?
YOU keep missing the point—the question was NOT asked in good faith—it was asked solely to handicap Justice Jackson in deciding future transgender cases no matter what her response would have been— even a demurral is used against her as supposed proof that she is stupid.
And who are you to say that gender is strictly defined by chromosomes, external genitalia or the presence or absence of internal organs? What about people born with ambiguous genitalia or who are born without a uterus, vestigial testicles or vestigial ovaries, or who have chromosomal anomalies? I’ve seen such cases.
This is just another culture wars distraction from the real issues that Trump and Republicans keep messing up.
You first – create an unambiguous definition of who a woman is. It has to be water tight with no exceptions.
The fact that conservatives have failed to produce one that meets the legal requirement to be used suggests that it is a distraction for the ignorant.
Wrong.
A woman is a human born with XX 46th pair of chromosomes. Women have different sex organs, different bone and muscle structure, differing hormones than males. There are some mutations or abnormalities that do occur but they are rare.
Would a white male have been a better choice?
No. A better choice would have been a woman who was able to define what a woman is, and who understands that the sole purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by a democratically elected Congress not, as an unelected branch of government upon which there is no check or balance, to make new law at its whim.
The disastrous Biden regime will live on for years and years because of this DEI hire. What an incredibly stupid creature.