politics

Yeah. As utterly stupid as the argument sounds, he can't be prosecuted for any official acts and he can pardon anyone who enacts his will, so his administration can deny anyone their constitutional rights and escape accountability.

That's not the same as saying folks don't have rights, but effectively they can be denied any meaningful opportunity to exercise them, without consequence. Someone has a right to a trial? You and what army are going to get to his cell to take them before a judge? No army? Then good luck getting him to court because anyone preventing you from doing so is immune to legal action and anyone NOT preventing you is fired.

The Supreme Court has issued some terrible rulings in the last twenty years. "Democracy is autocracy" is some 1984-level shit.

He did not put his hands on the Bible for a reason

Because he knew nobody would actually enforce it.

That's the Declaration of Independence.

You don't need to. Obama wore a tan suit like a male model and the GOP shat a forest of redwoods.

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.

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.

Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn’t be permitted in current cases regarding immigration.

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.

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.”

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.

Looking from pig to man and man to pig, impossible to tell which is which