close
close
Trump’s authoritarianism sneaked

From

This is an adapted extract from Lisa Rubins by MSNBC Legal correspondent May 15th Comments on the birth law of the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about Donald Trump’s efforts to end citizenship at all. Instead, perhaps the most important moment of the hearing on Thursday came when the Top lawyer of the Trump government (who was previously Trump’s personal lawyer of the Supreme Court), Attorney General D. John Sauer, unveiled a worrying sign of crawling authoritarianism.

Sauer said Barrett that it was “general practice” to “respect these precedence cases”, but added that there are “circumstances in which it is not a categorical practice”.

During an exchange between Sour And judge Amy Coney Barrett – Trump’s youngest candidate for the court and in most cases a reliable conservative – the judiciary confronted him with the government’s approach to comply with court orders of courts Except the Supreme Court (AKA, Federal, District and Court of Appeal).

Sauer said Barrett that it was “general practice” for the government to “respect these precedence cases”, added that “there are circumstances if it is not a categorical practice.”

Barrett then asked about whether he believes that this was historically the “general medicine” of the Trump government or the Ministry of Justice.

“The way I understand it (it is the long -standing) long -level of the Ministry of Justice,” he replied. “As I was put, respect (we) in general, but not necessarily in any case. Some examples could be a situation in which we are arguing to try to override this precedent due to the circuit, and so on.”

Barrett continued Sauer and replied that she did not refer to circumstances, as if the second circuit (one of the 13 federal control circuits) “has a case from 1955 and you think it’s time that it is challenged.”

“I’m not talking about that,” Barrett continued. “I am talking about this week, the second circuit is of the opinion that the executive regulation is unconstitutional, and what do you do the next day or the next week?”

Sauer replied again that the administration of this order would follow “in general”.

Contrary to the claim of Sauer that the long-standing DOJ directive does not find any support, let alone department standards.

“So you still say” in general “? And you still think that it is generally the political-long-term politics of the federal government to pursue this approach?” Barrett pressed.

“That is my understanding,” confirmed Sauer.

Here is what this means in simple English: The Trump administration tells the Supreme Court through its highest lawyer that she does not believe that under all circumstances it has to fulfill the instructions of the lower court. And in contrast to Sauer’s claim, this is not supported in the long-standing Doj Directive, let alone department standards.

It is one thing to hear political actors – be it the press spokesman for the White House or even the Vice President JD Vance – that the administration should not be bound to federal court resolutions that she sees as lawless. But it is another matter to hear the government’s top promise before the United States’s Supreme Court.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *