Subject: Re: Big ruling on nationwide injunctions
Woof. Where to start.

Umm, it seems, rather, that the Supreme Court has made a conscious decision to break the Constitution, transforming it from the law of the land into a piecemeal promise.

No. Not at all.
The courts can only
(1) Hear and rule on whatever is in front of them
(2) Issue orders that apply to their districts.

They’re only District Courts. Some judge in Maine can’t tell me what to do in Washington just because he/she feels like it. Especially when I’ve never appeared in their court.

BTW. Welcome to how 2nd Amendment cases have been adjudicated nationwide for decades.

So doesn't this now mean that a baby born in New York to undocumented parents is a citizen but one born to undocumented parents in Kentucky is not a citizen?

It means there’s a fundamental Constitutional question that needs to be arbitrated.

Your example defeats your own argument, by the way. Let’s say

a) The New York judge says the kid is a citizen and writes an order
b) The Kentucky judge says no they’re not

Who wins? ACB just said “You guys don’t get to order stuff nationally”.

And while we're musing citizenship and deportation, since Ivana wasn’t an American citizen until 1988 but gave birth to Don Junior in 1977, Ivanka in 1981, and Eric in 1984, shouldn't their birthright citizenship be cancelled and they be deported?

Given that Ivana is dead and DJT is the father of all the kids then we’re not deporting anyone.