Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[cottagecheesefan]

Stems from the birthright citizenship case. Was a 6-3 decision, here are two clips basically explaining what happened. But now a district federal judge cannot make universal injunctions.

There has been so many of these injunctions, I wonder how it will affect previous EOs and such. Trump supposed to give a presser in this any time now





Barret wrote the majority opinion, called out KJB

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Live stream of the presser, should be starting any moment

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Live stream of the presser, should be starting any moment

Have you got your lube and tissues ready my friend?

 

[shunyata]

Ceding more power to the executive branch again.

Do people not see this as a problem?

 

[payton]

Yeah its best to let natural selection takes it course.

 

[oldshadow]

In 2022 the democrats were against these judges doing this but with Trump they changed their mind. This is a good ruling.

As far as birth right citizenship itself it can still go to thr court this dors not stop that.

I believe Trump will lose on that and it will take a change to the constitution to change that and I don't think that will happen. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

 

[Fergelmince]

Ceding more power to the executive branch again.

Do people not see this as a problem?

It's the natural reaction to the radical left incessantly pushing a leftist Federal judiciary dictatorship

 

[avenue94]

In 2022 the democrats were against these judges doing this but with Trump they changed their mind. This is a good ruling.

As far as birth right citizenship itself it can still go to thr court this dors not stop that.

I believe Trump will lose on that and it will take a change to the constitution to change that and I don't think that will happen. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

They were against venue shopping, which is a related but distinct problem. Can you explain why the GOP suddenly changed its mind on this issue?

 

[oldshadow]

Ceding more power to the executive branch again.

Do people not see this as a problem?

So you want a court in one state to be able to rule on the entire country. Not was something they should never be able to do. They can rule on their state and that can go to the Supreme Court and if they rule they are right then it affects the whole country.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I believe Trump will lose on that and it will take a change to the constitution to change that and I don't think that will happen. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Yea, will now go through the courts, and if needed, the SCOTUS will rule on that individual case. I agree it will likely lose that case itself.

 

[oldshadow]

They were against venue shopping, which is a related but distinct problem. Can you explain why the GOP suddenly changed its mind on this issue?

Because whoever is in power wants to use it as a weapon will, both side.

 

[avenue94]

So you want a court in one state to be able to rule on the entire country. Not was something they should never be able to do. They can rule on their state and that can go to the Supreme Court and if they rule they are right then it affects the whole country.

Some cases have nationwide implications. In the case of citizenship, it makes no sense to have a patchwork of different standards for citizenship across various states depending on how different judges ruled.

 

[Fluffernutter]

Ceding more power to the executive branch again.

Do people not see this as a problem?

I think what SCOTUS was trying to do is to tell the lower courts to stay in their lane and let them handle these decisions.

SCOTUS could certainly shoot down Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship (and most likely will). But, that's their decision to make, according to them.

 

[avenue94]

Because whoever is in power wants to use it as a weapon will, both side.

The democrats supported randomizing judge case assignments and the GOP opposed this.

Not to mention it's not even close the injunctions that GOP pet judges (violating basic needs for standing, for example) have issued compared to a case like this, where the Supreme Court is sanctioning blatant unconstitutional conduct.

Birthright citizenship is one the most crystal clear parts of the constition and nation's history.

 

[oldshadow]

Some cases have nationwide implications. In the case of citizenship, it makes no sense to have a patchwork of different standards for citizenship across various states depending on how different judges rulsides.

Which is why it will go to the Supreme Court and their decision will affect the whole country.

 

[Richmma80]

That DEI hire Jackson is one dumb ass bitch. I bet the other judges want to beat that ass every time she opens up her mouth

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

another win for the American people.

 

[oldshadow]

The democrats supported randomizing judge case assignments and the GOP opposed this.

Not to mention it's not even close the injunctions that GOP pet judges (violating basic needs for standing, for example) have issued compared to a case like this, where the Supreme Court is sanctioning blatant unconstitutional conduct.

Birthright citizenship is one the most crystal clear parts of the constition and nation's history.

And the Supreme Court will rule on that case and I believe Trump will lose. It i believe will take a change to the constitution to do that.

However look at the 2nd amendment how its written and the restrictions that the court has allowed on that so its possible.

 

[Fergelmince]

That DEI hire Jackson is one dumb ass bitch. I bet the other judges want to beat that ass every time she opens up her mouth

It's alarming she got nominated and confirmed. She is dangerously stupid and needs to be impeached.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It's alarming she got nominated and confirmed. She is dangerously stupid and needs to be impeached.

Unreal