At Supreme Court, steady wins for conservative states and Trump’s claims of executive power
Washington – The Supreme Court, which ended on Friday, will not be remembered for decisions that break the box office records that have reduced the right to abortion and university in recent years.
Justice took back its disks this year and focused on deciding most of its energies. Fast Track Objections from President Trump. The lawyers of the administration complained that there were too many judges in front of Trump’s agenda.
On Friday, the court agreed to restrain the judges of regional judges for the conservatives of Trump.
However, what is missing so far is a clear decision that the president has complied with the law or exceeds his authority in the US Constitution.
In the last two days of the period, the conservative majority of the court provided great gains for Republican -oriented states, religious parents and Trump.
Justice gave states the authority to prohibit medical treatments for transgender young people, reject Medicaid funds to planned parenting clinics and apply age verification laws for online porn sites.
Each of them came with a familiar 6-3 division, while the Republican appointments deal with the GOP-led states, while democratic appointments opposed.
Although these decisions were important, it was something that lacked the turning point decisions throughout the country-celebrated victories for the Republican half of the nation, but did not have a direct or urgent impact on the democratic-led states.
It is not possible to limit California MPs to restrict gender care or give measures to prohibit women from taking birth control, pregnancy test or medical scans in a planned parenting clinic.
New decisions, three years ago Roe etc. He reiterated the decision of Wade and the DABBS decision, which hit the right to constitutional abortion.
As Conservative Justice stated, the decision in Dobbs and Jackson Women’s Health did not prohibit abortion throughout the country. However, he allowed conservative states to do so. Since then, the state -led state -led state in the South and Middle West has adopted new laws to prohibit most or all of the abortions.
On this front, the court’s decisions reflect a “federalism” or state rights of the two years of President Reagan and the Conservative leaders of the court, two years of the past justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
Both of them, both Washington has a lot of power and have a lot of control over the states and local governments with the opinion that the arizona republicans (and O’Connor’s case, an old state legislator).
While the country is sharply divided along the partisan lines, today’s Conservative Court can be praised or defended to release states to make different elections on “cultural wars”.
This year’s other great winner Trump and his Extensive executive power claims.
Since he returned to the White House in January, Trump claimed that he had the authority to run federal agencies, cutting their expenditures and firing most of their employees, without the approval of the Congress, which creates and finances the agencies.
He also claimed the authority to bring any amount of tariffs to any country and to change his opinion a few days later.
He sent national guard troops and marine paste to Los Angeles against the requests of the Governor and the mayor.
He claimed that he could punish universities and law firms.
Authorized, 14th change and the right to birth, the Citizenship Article claimed that the administrator order.
So far, the Supreme Court has not decided against Trump’s extensive allegations. However, justice, Trump’s lawyers applied a number of emergency appeals and set aside the sub -court orders that prevented the entry into force of their initiatives.
The theme was that the judges were not the president, but outside the line.
CUSTOMICAL MEASURES THIS COUNTRY BORDING Power on Friday 26 -page view. The Conservatives admitted that some judges had exceeded their authorities by extensively deciding on a single case.
Justice has not yet decided that it has exceeded the power of the president.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett summarized the dispute in an explanatory comment that responds to an opposition from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Justice Jackson takes out an imperial administrator while embracing an imperial judiciary,” he wrote.
All of this is incomplete, in Washington, and in this case, it is a previous type of conservatism that opposes the focused power in a person.
He offered a clue about what would happen last year. A year ago, the court ended his time by proclaiming that the president had been prosecuted for his official actions when he was in the White House.
This decision, Trump and United StatesThe old and soon protected the president of the presidency from criminal law.
The Constitution does not talk about such immunity for the former presidents accused of crimes, but the Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., “the President of the President to perform the constitutional tasks without excessive attention,” he said a shield of immunity is necessary.
Since he returned to the White House, Trump has not been accused of using “extreme attention ..
Instead, it seems to see the court’s opinion as to approve the uncontrolled power of the country as the general manager of the country. Trump consultants say that he has the authority and authority to put their priorities and policies into force because he was elected president.
However, the conservatives of the Court of Cassation did not receive this opinion when the President Biden promised to take action on climate change and to reduce the burden of the student loan debt.
In both areas, the Roberts Court decided that the Biden administration has exceeded its authority in accordance with the laws adopted by the congress.
Far from Washington, the most important decision from this period may be the strengthening parents of the decision of Friday.
The six justice in the correctly ruled parents has the right to remove their children from certain public schools that disturb their religious beliefs. They objected to new story books and lessons for young children with LGBTQ+ themes.
In recent years, the Court, led by Roberts, has argued the “free exercise ın of the religion protected by the 1st change. In a series of decisions, the Court exempt Catholic schools and charity institutions, such as providing contraceptives or regulations to employees.
on Fridays Decision in the Maryland case He expanded this religious freedom towards schools and ruled Muslim and Catholic parents who objected to the new LGBTQ+themed story books.
At first, the school board said that parents’ young children could provide “transfer” of these classes. However, when a lot of parents received a proposal, the school board canceled.
The conflict between progressive educators and conservative parents reached the court when the Becket religious freedom fund appealed on behalf of parents.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., parents believed that books and stories have broken their religious beliefs, and to the school officials, “When one of these books should be used, they ordered them to inform them in advance and allow their children to excuse this instruction.
This decision may have a wider effect than this term, because it strengthens parents throughout the country. But it also has limits. It does not require schools to change their curriculum and lessons or remove the book from shelves.
Conservatives were inadequate in a vote in a case that could bring a comprehensive change in American schools. 4 to 4, divided by the country’s first public church, run by the church of the country could not decide to support the Charter school.
In the past, Roberts had voted to allow students to use state learning grants in religious schools, but seemed unclear in using tax money to operate a school operated by the church.
However, it is almost certain for this question to return to court. Barrett left the case of Oklahoma in April because friends and former colleagues at Notre Dame Faculty of Law appealed. However, in a future case, he can participate and decide.
