Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Hog-train]

Then it's appealed to the Court of Appeals, which is already what happens when there are conflicts between district courts.

There's no silver bullet here, but it's insane to argue that in this case we should have different standards for US citizenship based on how individual districts rule.

But US citizenship or different standards were not decided just now by the Supreme Court.

All they ruled on was that lower court rulings do not apply nationally to everyone.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

What a fucking wimp.

projection.

 

[Rod1]

Then it's appealed to the Court of Appeals, which is already what happens when there are conflicts between district courts.

There's no silver bullet here, but it's insane to argue that in this case we should have different standards for US citizenship based on how individual districts rule.

There is no pretense with these guys anymore, outright in favor of collectivism and fascism, as long as the people doing the collectivization and fascism have the same values as them.

 

[Rod1]

But US citizenship or different standards were not decided just now by the Supreme Court.

No, but they said that the US president can carry on with EOs until the SCOTUS drags their feet to decide.

All they ruled on was that lower court rulings do not apply nationally to everyone.

And by doing so they rule that the President has the authority to pass laws and judge on those laws until the SCOTUS can make a ruling, which is of course just ripe for abuse.

 

[avenue94]

But US citizenship or different standards were not decided just now by the Supreme Court.

All they ruled on was that lower court rulings do not apply nationally to everyone.

Which in turn creates a patchwork as different judges will enforce different rulings and standards until higher courts resolve the mess they are ducking.

It also makes no sense to allow a blatantly unconstitutional power grab from the executive to go forward in this case. There's absolutely no way to read the 14th Amendment or entire constitution and conclude it doesn't call for birth right citizenship.

 

[Rod1]

projection.

Not at all i have a very clear point in this case

I think that individual rights are sacred and thus a judge pausing an EO that is taking away said invidual rights is not a case "imperial judiciary".

You on the other hand agree with Trump but are too coward to accept it.

 

[avenue94]

There is no pretense with these guys anymore, outright in favor of collectivism and fascism, as long as the people doing the collectivization and fascism have the same values as them.

Ya, hog cracks me up because he is pro civil rights when it applies to green card holders and those calling for a ceasefire in Gaza but as soon as it's illegal immigrants, it's fuck due process. Just a bizarre juxtaposition.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I think that individual rights are sacred

lmao. that's because you're retarded. get Huitzilopochtli out of your ass, this isn't dung brick worship hour.

 

[Rod1]

Ya, hog cracks me up because he is pro civil rights when it applies to green card holders and those calling for a ceasefire in Gaza but as soon as it's illegal immigrants, it's fuck due process. Just a bizarre juxtaposition.

Its a very common position on people who don't believe certain kind of people aren't "real Americans".

 

[Rod1]

lmao. that's because you're retarded. get Huitzilopochtli out of your ass, this isn't dung brick worship hour.

Stop tagging me fucking pussy.

Also congrats on getting the spelling right as a non-spanish speaker, but im sure you just copy pasted

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Stop tagging me fucking pussy.

it's called quoting, not tagging, dumbass.

Also congrats on getting the spelling right as a non-spanish speaker, but im sure you just copy pasted

i actually didn't. love the massacre of his brothers, the stars

 

[heloder]

That's actually not what was just decided. What the decision says is that if a lower court issues a ruling for that group of people (who brought that lawsuit), it only applies to THAT group of people and not nationwide.

You can't be serious, right? You just repeated what I've been saying this entire thread. Hell, the section you quoted literally says what you said. With nationwide injunctions, everybody is protected until legality is settled. Without nationwide injunctions, only those actively suing the US government are protected.

Otherwise, imagine if we have a lower court in one state rule one way with a nationwide injunction, but another judge somewhere else rules the opposite. Well then who's nationwide injunction gets precedence?

You only have an injunction if you demand that the EO (or whatever) is halted temporary. That would take precedence over the other court's ruling, until a higher court overturns it.

Know what's funny though? You're trying to use that "chaos" to justify the ruling without realizing that the actual chaos is what happens after this ruling. Because now, instead of there being a nationwide injunction until legality is settled, which protects everybody, you will have certain lawsuits with protected individuals in certain areas, while other areas and people are not protected by those lawsuits. And indeed, even if said people win their lawsuit, it still doesn't guarantee legal protection for people who weren't in the lawsuit, even if their situations are identical. How does that make more sense to you?

 

[Rod1]

it's called quoting, not tagging, dumbass.

I think you are smart enough to get the point.

i actually didn't. love the massacre of his brothers, the stars

I don't know much about Aztec mythology but i think its one of its origin stories? the one i read was about him throwing himself in a fire and being reborn as the sun god.

 

[Rod1]

And indeed, even if said people win their lawsuit, it still doesn't guarantee legal protection for people who weren't in the lawsuit, even if their situations are identical. How does that make more sense to you?

It only makes sense if they agree with the current rulers values, its legalese to give Trump enough maneuver to act like a king but having the SCOTUS on top prevents Trump "kingly" acts to damage people like yourself.

Its ironic how they used the term "Imperial Judiciary" when this shit basically turns America into a Judiciary theocracy like Iran, where the President is supreme but the Ayatollah on top of him can overrule him.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I don't know much about Aztec mythology but i think its one of its origin stories? the one i read was about him throwing himself in a fire and being reborn as the sun god.

yeah, he's the one to which human sacrifices were made daily, to keep the sun (himself) reappearing. the most memorable stereotypes of mesoamerican worship come from him.

 

[BFoe]

why bother? it got fully destroyed by Amy

Willfully ignoring someone’s argument is not destroying it.
And I find Barrett’s accusation that Jackson “embraces an imperial judiciary” silly and unconvincing.

That's actually not what was just decided. What the decision says is that if a lower court issues a ruling for that group of people (who brought that lawsuit), it only applies to THAT group of people and not nationwide.

Only the Supreme Court can decide for the entire country.

Otherwise, imagine if we have a lower court in one state rule one way with a nationwide injunction, but another judge somewhere else rules the opposite. Well then who's nationwide injunction gets precedence?

There’s almost no examples of that happening in the past 50 years because various courts typically work together so as not to conflict.

A nationwide injunction is not some final ruling for the whole country. It’s a temporary action to prevent harm while the full merits of a case are investigated. Let’s look back at a case where the shoe was on the other foot and a nationwide injunction was upheld by the Appeals Court.

After Obama signed the DACA EO, the state of Texas sued. They said DACA caused injury to them by forcing them to provide these people with state subsidized driver’s licenses, which have a cost. The state court issued a nationwide injunction, and that’s the only way to mitigate the potential injury. It doesn’t do any good to for the judge to say, “Ok, Texas, we won’t let DACA take effect in Texas solely,” because people with DACA status in other states could simply move to Texas, apply for a driver’s license, and cause the same injury that TX was seeking relief from.

The same thing can exist in other cases. Imagine a POTUS signs an EO with some new election guideline right before an election. What good is a ruling for a plaintiff that doesn’t apply elsewhere? What good is a ruling that only applies to one district, but no other district in the state and none of the other 49 states?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Willfully ignoring someone’s argument is not destroying it.
And I find Barrett’s accusation that Jackson “embraces an imperial judiciary” silly and unconvincing.

not all arguments are made equal.

and it does look like it was a dick measuring contest - who should have the bigger power, the executive or the judiciary? the SC decided it was the former.

 

[Rod1]

not all arguments are made equal.

and it does look like it was a dick measuring contest - who should have the bigger power, the executive or the judiciary? the SC decided it was the former.

The SC put themselves above the president with the ruling, they just allowed the president to ignore the lower courts, so kind of how the Pope made kings absolute rulers, but still subjects to the Pope's will.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

The SC put themselves above the president with the ruling, they just allowed the president to ignore the lower courts, so kind of how the Pope made kings absolute rulers, but still subjects to the Pope's will.

ain't worked out too well for the pope though.
it was a stupid aspect of the law that needed clarification one way or the other. for now, trump won. when the democrats have the presidency next time, they'll also abuse the shit out of it. power gained is not given up easily. all the democrats crying about it now will cheer it when their president will use it.

that's why i don't buy the high horse argument.


oh, and do i think it made the country worse? for sure.
why? because america, like basically everywhere, is not ruled, and will not be ruled by moral people that understand power is not to be abused. which is also true of institutions like the judiciary being flooded by political appointees and activists. it's the same shit. one side won. power itself won. it would have won either way.

 

[BFoe]

not all arguments are made equal.

Ah, maybe Barrett only counted it as 3/5 of an argument.


In all seriousness, Barrett doesn’t have to “dwell” on the argument, but those writing the majority opinion have a duty to address the dissenters’ arguments at least. After laying out her case, Barrett could have simply said “This is why Justice Jackson’s argument fails, because it doesn’t conform to precedents X, Y, and Z” or whatever.

and it does look like it was a dick measuring contest - who should have the bigger power, the executive or the judiciary? the SC decided it was the former.

But of course neither is supposed to have more power. There’s some debate over whether we were intended to have 3 co-equal branches, or whether Congress was intended to have more power than the others. There’s no serious thought that the executive should have more power than any other branch. Well, there never was before the last couple of years.

I don’t know how we’re going to undo the damage that the Roberts Court has caused. It’s a real problem.