266
Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president
(www.peoplesworld.org)
this post was submitted on 17 May 2025
266 points (98.2% liked)
politics
23594 readers
3743 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm just as frustrated and horrified by what's going on as everyone else, but this headline is SUCH a stretch. Like, 98% click bait, 2% kinda-sorta truth. PLEASE read the actual article and not just the headline.
This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It's a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It's currently being used to pause some of Trump's worst bullshit.
Trump's lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn't be permitted in current cases regarding immigration. They've also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that "the constitution doesn't apply to the president."
And it's also necessary to allow the courts to keep the justice system from getting overwhelmed. Without nationwide injunctions, it would lead to courts being swamped with hundreds of thousands of lawsuits from individual citizens instead of just dealing with a handful of lawsuits meant to represent people nationwide.
The lack of nationwide injunctions also means that the government would be able to trample on the rights of poor people with impunity, knowing that they very likely wouldn't have the knowledge, money, or resources needed to seek relief from the courts. They would also have the comfort of knowing they can continue trampling on their rights for years while these individual cases make their way through a bogged down court system.
Constitutional protections would only essentially be available to those with the money and resources to have legal representation. The Trump administration was basically arguing that they have the right to trample on the rights of those who cannot afford to defend themselves, and no federal judge should be able to stop them.
Actually, no. His lawyers are arguing that this mechanism shouldn't be permitted at all. That's the whole point of this case to begin with. The case itself is patently unconstitutional on its face. But the underlying goal -- the essential neutering of judicial review -- is the real prize. That's what this case is about.
Actually, they are. First, as I said above, the Trump administration is literally asking for the right to ignore Constitutional amendments and the rights granted by the Constitution. They're asking the Supreme Court to say that Trump can issue unconstitutional executive orders and that the courts have little to no right to judicial review or to do anything about it.
And more importantly, they literally admitted that the only court they're going to even listen to is the Supreme Court. Maybe.
They literally admitted, after being repeatedly questioned over it and after many attempts at tapdancing around it, that they have no intention of listening to lower courts and would abide by Supreme Court rulings that they agree with.
So yes. They absolutely are arguing that the Constitution doesn't apply to the President. The headline is accurate.
I agree with everything you said. You CAN draw a logical line from what Trump's lawyers are saying to the conclusion that "Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president." That statement and conclusion is not, technically, factually, incorrect.
However, I do feel like using that statement as a headline strips away all the context and nuance, leaving nothing behind but rage-inductive click-bait. That headline gives no meaningful information, and if someone takes it as literal truth, without reading the rest of the story, they will be massively uninformed about what's actually going on. It's a disservice to the reader.