The right wing SCOTUS has ruled against more directly against Trump before, and has done so recently. For instance, he called for them to block the TikTok law, and they ruled 9-0 the other way.

Or they also might just not pick up the case. SCOTUS often just lets rulings like this happen by letting the lower court rulings stand

Every fight is worth having

SCOTUS is insane but they pick and choose when to be insane. Don’t assume all cases will go a given way

The judge who just put a temporary injunction was even a Ronald Regan appointee

The executive order is not directly related, yes. This is about conservative pressure campaigns related to companies

Should note that Jack Dorsey is not part of Bluesky anymore. He left a little while ago

Not all cases make it up to SCOTUS. Massive numbers of suits are being filed right now, they can’t take them all up with just 9 justices. Many of these lawsuit are intentionally filed in places with more dem appointees on the district and appeals courts

SCOTUS is insane, but they are also not in lock step with Trump. They have their own agenda that often align with Trump but not always. For instance, they just ruled 9-0 on the TikTok ban while Trump was calling for the courts to rule the opposite way

We won’t we every fight, but there’s fights we can win. Use every tool we can against them

It has slowed them before. Make them have to keep rewriting it to survive challenges

Make them deal with the companies who don’t trust the next admin won’t just go the opposite way. Apple for instance is keeping TikTok delisted from the App Store despite trump trying to extend it

Make them have to deal with federal worker strikes

Make them have to deal with local & state officals who won’t comply with invalid orders

There is a fight. Don’t let them get away without one

So stand down and never fight? Absolutely not

There is a fight, don’t let them go without one

Progress will happen at the local and state level. The goal at the federal level is damage control

Many of the orgs fighting them also aren’t governmental like the ACLU, the EFF, and other groups. Plus even localities like cities are even filing lawsuits against his EOs

Biden had tons of his stuff blocked in courts and got all the blame for the courts blocking it. The public isn’t really good at paying attention to why something happened only that it didn’t

it is challenged, it occupies time and resources

It also takes up their time and resources to which I say: good. Slow it all down

They’d rather be able to steam roll through it all. Make them waste time defending everything so they can’t sue as much about things they do care about or move on to putting other things in effect

There are already groups that have pledge lawsuits on this specific executive orders. The courts don’t just decide to do a lawsuit, people and organizations

Others have already filed multiple lawsuits on multiple of his executive orders. There’s 4 different lawsuits already filed against his one trying to overturn birthright citizenship for instance. ACLU, group of 22 state attorney generals, separate group of states, and some other orgs.

Also note that they’re also filing many of these in courts with more dem appointees who are much more likely to grant injunctions, rule favorably, etc. This is a tactic called judge shoping that republicans have historically loved to exploit and now it’s being used against them. Most cases never reach SCOTUS so this stuff matters. SCOTUS can only take up so many cases with 9 justices and there’s already massive numbers of suits here

Actually it being poorly written helps a lot with court challenge. That was one of the reasons why so much was overturned in his first administration. There was a fear that this time he’d sign better written executive orders that would survive challanges instead we’re getting a lot of them like this

You’ve heard of non-binary gender, get ready for its upgraded form: unary gender

Bad headline IMO, she’s more so pointing out more flaws in it which is different than laughing it off

The EO definition didn’t refer to chromosomes at all actually it referred to female as “at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” and male “at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

A zygote is a singular cell at coneception… so you could also argue it’s saying everyone’s bigender actually. In any case its extremely poorly written, goes against science, and forgets about intersex people

(also note that XX and XY chromosomes don’t guarantee AMAB or AFAB. You can have XX chromosomes and present completely AMAB and vice versa)