Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Rob Battisti]

You're arguing that political patronage is supposed to be based on merit. It's naive. It never has been. No justice has ever been appointed ourelt foremost based on it.

The more bizarre part is your hate boner for Jackson that doesn't apply to any other justice as far as I can tell.

You are getting emotional when all I’ve done is be consistent in my position. Why dont we allow this to happen all the time?

If SCJ aren’t based on merit, why do you consistently bring up her qualifications? If it’s not merit, then it’s just based on immutable characteristics? That sounds pretty racist.

No other nominee has ever been selected from such a limited pool. Your framing of Marshall is also slightly disingenuous. However, I’ll allow it which is why my position is still consistent.

 

[avenue94]

You are getting emotional when all I’ve done is be consistent in my position. Why dont we allow this to happen all the time?

If SCJ aren’t based on merit, why do you consistently bring up her qualifications? If it’s not merit, then it’s just based on immutable characteristics? That sounds pretty racist.

You are consistent in your lack of historical knowledge. Not knowing Marshall was picked because he was black is hilarious omission, just basic high school history and civics.

And the qualifications are pertinent because even non merit based positions require competence. Take Hegseth for example. You can oppose his nomination both politically or due to competence. Or for the inverse, I oppose Rubio for sec of stare politically, but he's qualified for the position based on his CV.

Again, it's telling that you hole Jackson to a weird standard that doesn't apply to any other justice.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You are consistent in your lack of historical knowledge. Not knowing Marshall was picked because he was black is hilarious omission, just basic high school history and civics.

And the qualifications are pertinent because even non merit based positions require competence. Take Hegseth for example. You can oppose his nomination both politically or due to competence. Or for the inverse, I oppose Rubio for sec of stare politically, but he's qualified for the position based on his CV.

Again, it's telling that you hole Jackson to a weird standard that doesn't apply to any other justice.

Why are you ignoring my questions and getting upset? I realize Johnson’s consideration of Marshall, but I don’t believe that he said prior to the nomination that “I’ll be selecting a black man” publicly. Upon looking into it, he didn’t say that.

Once again, why don’t we allow this all the time? It’s not based on merit, there are no qualifications so it’s okay to go off of immutable characteristics as the foundational qualifier. Okay. You keep talking about qualifications which is not what I’ve ever argued.

 

[avenue94]

Why are you ignoring my questions and getting upset? I realize Johnson’s consideration of Marshall, but I don’t believe that he said prior to the nomination that “I’ll be selecting a black man” publicly. Upon looking into it, he didn’t say that.

Once again, why don’t we allow this all the time? It’s not based on merit, there are no qualifications so it’s okay to go off of immutable characteristics as the foundational qualifier. Okay. You keep talking about qualifications which is not what I’ve ever argued.

It was decided privately that it would only be a black nominee, after considering a female nominee as an alternative.

If you read the quote I provided earlier, you would understand what Johnson was saying publicly.

And are you really asking me why the country doesn't allow purely merit based selection of a political institution that serves to further the goals of those who nominate its members?

Supreme Court justices are picked to advance goals and issue rulings favorable to political lobbies, or at least maximize those chances of success.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It was decided privately that it would only be a black nominee, after considering a female nominee as an alternative.

If you read the quote I provided earlier, you would understand what Johnson was saying publicly.

And are you really asking me why the country doesn't allow purely merit based selection of a political institution that serves to further the goals of those who nominate its members?

Supreme Court justices are picked to advance goals and issue rulings favorable to political lobbies, or at least maximize those chances of success.

Yes, and I am opposed to it. What is the problem? I feel like you understand my position, being consistently against a negative selection process, while you are trying to argue that I’m saying something about qualifications.

There are always going to be private considerations. Of which, I oppose if they are based on immutable characteristics. Jackson’s was egregious.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Imagine how silly I must feel to not want the selection pool for a nomination to be limited by 96%.

 

[avenue94]

Yes, and I am opposed to it. What is the problem? I feel like you understand my position, being consistently against a negative selection process, while you are trying to argue that I’m saying something about qualifications.

There are always going to be private considerations. Of which, I oppose if they are based on immutable characteristics. Jackson’s was egregious.

Do you oppose every single president in history so zero were based on pure merit? That's my critique of your position, it makes no sense and is ahistorical. And in turn, due to your bias and lack of knowledge, you only apply your "justices must be picked on merit" to the first black female justice, yet someohow none of the other juustices who weren't based on merit

It's your own bias, it's at odds with you supposed fetish for "merit only."

Again, Jackson's nomination was no less egregious than John Marshall's. Such a ludicrous argument to make.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Do you oppose every single president in history so zero were based on pure merit? That's my critique of your position, it makes no sense and is ahistorical. And in turn, due to your bias and lack of knowledge, you only apply your "justices must be picked on merit" to the first black female justice, yet someohow none of the other juustices who weren't based on merit

It's your own bias, it's at odds with you supposed fetish for "merit only."

Again, Jackson's nomination was no less egregious than John Marshall's. Such a ludicrous argument to make.

Your critique makes no sense. A free and open election allows for any candidate to be considered in a democratic government. It’s okay if you want race and gender to be the foundational decision maker for nominations — I don’t. I think your position is ludicrous and flies in the face of reason.

 

[Rod1]

No there is a law against it and any state he tried that in could block ot for that state. What the court said was that one state court coukd not block something for the entire nation.

I don't think that is anything really new the state courts just over stepped.

If I understand this ruling right and I think I do.

And if the State agrees with the president?

 

[avenue94]

Your critique makes no sense. A free and open election allows for any candidate to be considered in a democratic government. It’s okay if you want race and gender to be the foundational decision maker for nominations — I don’t. I think your position is ludicrous and flies in the face of reason.

I never said it should be foundational, I'm merely agcknowleding the reality of patronage and biases. But you are all knotted up in your fly by night logic here. Presidential selections do not select for merit, unless you think the merit you wanted selected is electioneering. Which plainly isn't what we elect presidents for.

You can't argue that one is merit and the other (a president's excercise of power after election) isn't merit. Either they both are or they both aren't.

Just remember how this all started: You claimed Jackson was dumber than average and then you realized you couldn't name 10 justices from pre-1900 and qiuckly shut up and pivoted. Perhaps you should start wiht a basic historical education before drawing conclusions. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer on complex issues.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I never said it should be foundational, I'm merely agcknowleding the reality of patronage and biases. But you are all knotted up in your fly by night logic here. Presidential selections do not select for merit, unless you think the merit you wanted selected is electioneering. Which plainly isn't what we elect presidents for.

You can't argue that one is merit and the other (a president's excercise of power after election) isn't merit. Either they both are or they both aren't.

Just remember how this all started: You claimed Jackson was dumber than average and then you realized you couldn't name 10 justices from pre-1900 and qiuckly shut up and pivoted. Perhaps you should start wiht a basic historical education before drawing conclusions. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer on complex issues.

Can you quote a single time I mentioned merit? Fly by night logic? Not wanting to reduce a selection pool based on immutable characteristics? That’s fly by night logic?

Can you also quote where I said “Jackson is dumber than average”?

 

[Rob Battisti]

@avenue94 maybe I actually overestimated your intelligence since you’re acting completely irrationally, conflating my position(which I’ve reiterated multiple times) to something else and now you’re claiming I made statements I did not make.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I’m all knotted up — by literally saying the same thing over and over despite you misrepresenting my position. Holy smokes.

 

[KnightTemplar]

The God-Emperor just can't stop Winning!

- Made Iran tap to strikes.

- Showed Israel who really holds the power by not allowing them to kill the Iranian Supreme Leader.

- Had so many European leaders calling him, "Daddy", that NATO now stands for North Atlantic TRUMP Organisation.

- Supreme Court just told district court judges to stay in their fucking lane.

At this rate, Aliens will invade the earth on July 4th...and immediately surrender to Trump.

 

[Rob Battisti]

The God-Emperor just can't stop Winning!

- Made Iran tap to strikes.

- Showed Israel who really holds the power by not allowing them to kill the Iranian Supreme Leader.

- Had so many European leaders calling him, "Daddy", that NATO now stands for North Atlantic TRUMP Organisation.

- Supreme Court just told district court judges to stay in their fucking lane.

At this rate, Aliens will invade the earth on July 4th...and immediately surrender to Trump.

It’s definitely been a little streak for him for sure!

 

[Dalarna3]

This is a fantastic ruling

 

[oldshadow]

And if the State agrees with the president?

Any citizen can take it to court and all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Rod1]

Any citizen can take it to court and all the way to the Supreme Court.

But if the order is to barge into your home and take your guns, the damage is done, it can't be fixed.

 

[Limbo Pete]

But if the order is to barge into your home and take your guns, the damage is done, it can't be fixed.

What are you talking about? It's perfectly possible for any individual to take a case all the way to the SC when they've been sent to Libya

 

[Rob Battisti]

I don’t know how I feel about the ruling. On one hand, it feels like the courts have become too heavily politicized and activist oriented. The pendulum will swing both ways. On the other, I like the limitation on executive orders especially in matters of constitutional rights.