Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Darkballs]

Have the Liberals figured out that they're losing yet?

All I see is "racist" this, "sexist" that.

No. Looks like the state of Maryland just certified all citizens with birthright citizenship as a class and got it before the federal court in Baltimore. So, per SCOTUS's own decision today, this will serve as a nationwide injunction until the Court rules on the merits. Which trump will 100% lose, and I have even seen any of you idiots even try to argue that this is Consitutional.

In short, you played the fascist card and immediately got worked. Would you like me to bump the thread when SCOTUS rules against trump?

 

[oldshadow]

Ok, but in the meanwhile you give the executive branch to violate basic citizens right.

You are basically saying that everything is permitted until the SCOTUS rules on it, which is ridiculous, if Biden issued an EO ordering the military to go house by house seizing guns and destroying them, should it wait until it reaches the SCOTUS?

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.

 

[avenue94]

My statements already showcased my opposition to any selection where the pool was artificially reduced. If that was indeed the case with Marshall, then yes.

I'd say then you're consistent but laughably out on a limb if your description of the first black Supreme Court justice is "DEI hire." This is why your argument is so dumb, first black justice is a DEI hire, but all his predecessors who were implicitly chosen because they were white are not DEI hires.

Brilliant.

However, I didn’t say I opposed the nomination if you read my posts. I said I have an issue with the way in which the nomination occured.

So you have an issue with the way the nomination was done and also believe, with no evidence I might add, that Jackson is dumber than the average justice. And of course you can't even name what part of her CV (or Marshall's for that matter) you found lacking.

But of course you don't actually oppose the nomination.

You're a pretzel here, I don't understand why you are so insistent on having strong historical opinions when you plainly don't know basic American history.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Man, imagine how obnoxious and dumb one has to be that's it's explicitly said in a public Supreme Court document LMAO

they legit hate her lol. solid diversity hire from biden.

 

[Darkballs]

Man, imagine how obnoxious and dumb one has to be that's it's explicitly said in a public Supreme Court document LMAO

they legit hate her lol. solid diversity hire from biden.

I doubt you know what any of that means. An "imperial judiciary," because a Federal District court issues an injunction under the clear guidelines they've operated under for over 200 years? Do tell.

But the dissent was spot on. They've already certified classes to get around this useless ruling. So dip dodge and duck all you want, conservative majority, you'll still have to answer the Constitutional question at issue. And it's one we all know trump loses. Which is why it's hillarious to watch you guys celebrate the lifting of an injunction for the purpose of violating the Constitution, by ignoring birthright citizenship.

 

[ShadowRun]

Someone needs to write a script that turns @Sinister's laugh emojis to crying emojis to more accurately reflect reality

That’s all @QueenBee does

Reddit NPC confirmed

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'd say then you're consistent but laughably out on a limb if your description of the first black Supreme Court justice is "DEI hire." This is why your argument is so dumb, first black justice is a DEI hire, but all his predecessors who were implicitly chosen because they were white are not DEI hires.

Brilliant.

So you have an issue with the way the nomination was done and also believe, with no evidence I might add, that Jackson is dumber than the average justice. And of course you can't even name what part of her CV (or Marshall's for that matter) you found lacking.

But of course you don't actually oppose the nomination.

You're a pretzel here, I don't understand why you are so insistent on having strong historical opinions when you plainly don't know basic American history.

Any hire that has immutable factors that are irrelevant to the role as the basis for the hire are by definition what we colloquially today call “DEI” hires.

I work in EEO. I cannot limit the pool of candidates based on a number of factors such as race or gender. This is obviously a good thing. Nomination is obviously different than hiring. However, my position that limiting the pool is always a negative has not changed. This is not to say that the best candidate overall cannot come from a smaller pool, but that statistically speaking, it’s obviously much worse odds of that happening.

You’re one of the more intelligent posters here so I’m not sure where you’re getting lost on my position.

When Marshall was nominated, was it stated before hand “I will be nominating a black man”?

Furthermore, there is no strict “qualification” for SCJ so any argument as to whether or not someone is qualified or not is only going to be a circular argument. I’ve never said Jackson wasn’t qualified. My issue was with the process. Since getting elevated to the bench, her rulings have been demonstrative of her capability.

 

[Cartiac]

Man, imagine how obnoxious and dumb one has to be that's it's explicitly said in a public Supreme Court document LMAO

they legit hate her lol. solid diversity hire from biden.

It is extremely shocking to see this level of admonishment in a SCOTUS opinion, especially one that sets a monumental, long needed correction to their own branch of government, directly and specifically to one of their own on the basic principals of her position under the Constitution and the fundamentals of how our government works. It was like talking to most of the wackjobs that post here.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

It is extremely shocking to see this level of admonishment in a SCOTUS opinion, especially one that sets a monumental, long needed correction to their own branch of government, directly and specifically to one of their own on the basic principals of her position under the Constitution and the fundamentals of how our government works. It was like talking to most of the wackjobs that post here.

Barrett is literally asking "how did you even pass the bar?".
Like, open mockery forever set in the public record.
Impressive stuff.
A lesson here - Don't bring the diversity hires in places where they're visible, boys.

 

[Rob Battisti]

It is extremely shocking to see this level of admonishment in a SCOTUS opinion, especially one that sets a monumental, long needed correction to their own branch of government, directly and specifically to one of their own on the basic principals of her position under the Constitution and the fundamentals of how our government works. It was like talking to most of the wackjobs that post here.

Barrett must be racist

 

[Cartiac]

I doubt you know what any of that means. An "imperial judiciary," because a Federal District court issues an injunction under the clear guidelines they've operated under for over 200 years? Do tell.

But the dissent was spot on. They've already certified classes to get around this useless ruling. So dip dodge and duck all you want, conservative majority, you'll still have to answer the Constitutional question at issue. And it's one we all know trump loses. Which is why it's hillarious to watch you guys celebrate the lifting of an injunction for the purpose of violating the Constitution, by ignoring birthright citizenship.

So where is your line to accept you are wrong? You are now actively advocating direct defiance against the decisions and authority of the Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS. What more does it take to realize who is really threatening "democracy"?

 

[BFoe]

Barrett is literally asking "how did you even pass the bar?".
Like, open mockery forever set in the public record.
Impressive stuff.
A lesson here - Don't bring the diversity hires in places where they're visible, boys.

Yet when comparing the two justices, it’s Ketanji Brown Jackson that’s more qualified.

ACB: Graduated from Norte Dame Law School. Clerked for Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and for Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Joined Norte Dame faculty as a professor.
She served as a judge for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for 3 years.

American Bar Association rated her “Well Qualified” overall, although a minority of them rated her as simply “Qualified.”

KBJ: graduated from Harvard Law School, served as editor of Harvard Law Review, clerked for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Was a lawyer at Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin and Goodwin Procter in private practice; assistant special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and as an assistant federal public defender in public practice.
She served as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 8 years and 2 months, and also US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit for another year before she became a SCOTUS justice.

She literally has public and private trial practice that ACB does not, and was a judge for basically triple the amount of time that ACB was.
Her rating from the ABA was a unanimous rating of Well Qualified.


And yet here we are, with dumb right wing tweets about her being the supposed least qualified justice ever. It all just reeks of the same racist nonsense that bubbles up from the Right anytime a minority with some power dares invalidate their right wing views.
It doesn’t do any good for me to call them on it though, as it turns out that telling racist people that they’re being racist isn’t a “winning message” for them.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Yet when comparing the two justices, it’s Ketanji Brown Jackson that’s more qualified.

ACB: Graduated from Norte Dame Law School. Clerked for Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and for Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. Joined Norte Dame faculty as a professor.
She served as a judge for 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for 3 years.

American Bar Association rated her “Well Qualified” overall, although a minority of them rated her as simply “Qualified.”

KBJ: graduated from Harvard Law School, served as editor of Harvard Law Review, clerked for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Was a lawyer at Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin and Goodwin Procter in private practice; assistant special counsel to the U.S. Sentencing Commission and as an assistant federal public defender in public practice.
She served as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for 8 years and 2 months, and also US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit for another year before she became a SCOTUS justice.

She literally has public and private trial practice that ACB does not, and was a judge for basically triple the amount of time that ACB was.
Her rating from the ABA was a unanimous rating of Well Qualified.


And yet here we are, with dumb right wing tweets about her being the supposed least qualified justice ever. It all just reeks of the same racist nonsense that bubbles up from the Right anytime a minority with some power dares invalidate their right wing views.
It doesn’t do any good for me to call them on it though, as it turns out that telling racist people that they’re being racist isn’t a “winning message” for them.

All those credentials clearly mean nothing if she got them.
That's why credentialism doesn't mean much these days. Because you can never be sure how they were given.
Barrett tossed her by literally telling her she doesn't even understand the constitution and the precedent. you can imagine how a lot in the SC feel about jackson.
so no, i don't buy the "look at all these diplomas" thing. diversity quotas killed the trust in those.

 

[BFoe]

All those credentials clearly mean nothing if she got them.
That's why credentialism doesn't mean much these days. Because you can never be sure how they were given.
Barrett tossed her by literally telling her she doesn't even understand the constitution and the precedent. you can imagine how a lot in the SC feel about jackson.
so no, i don't buy the "look at all these diplomas" thing. diversity quotas killed the trust in those.

Her qualifications mean nothing but Barrett's do? How convenient.
Jackson graduated from Harvard Law 30 years ago. Clarence Thomas straight up acknowledges he’d never have gotten to where he is without affirmative action, yet the Right doesn’t seem to care when it’s him in question.

Law degrees aside, Jackson just straight up has far more time as a trial lawyer—which I guess is a slam dunk compared to Barrett, who has zero—both public and private, triple the amount of time as a judge, and a unanimous ABA rating whereas Barnett did not.
There’s no getting around that.

What Barrett did was the judicial equivalent of saying “Talk to the hand,” and I don’t see anything convincing about that at all.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

What Barrett did was the judicial equivalent of saying “Talk to the hand,” and I don’t see anything convincing about that at all.

Well jackson's dissent surely gives all the reasons for it to be seen as convincing, especially using sophisticated language like this:



At least she didn't introduce "no cap" in the judicial record.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well jackson's dissent surely gives all the reasons for it to be seen as convincing, especially using sophisticated language like this:

View attachment 1101480

At least she didn't introduce "no cap" in the judicial record.

 

[BFoe]

Well jackson's dissent surely gives all the reasons for it to be seen as convincing, especially using sophisticated language like this:

View attachment 1101480

At least she didn't introduce "no cap" in the judicial record.

Jackson should’ve just called the decision “blah blah blah garbage.” That sufficed for Scalia after all.
Lots of justices intersperse colloquialisms, colorful language, and made up words in their decisions, Scalia was famous for it. In Scalia’s case it’s somehow presented as endearing, whereas for Jackson it’s used to paint her as unintelligent.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Jackson should’ve just called the decision “blah blah blah garbage.” That sufficed for Scalia after all.
Lots of justices intersperse colloquialisms, colorful language, and made up words in their decisions, Scalia was famous for it. In Scalia’s case it’s somehow presented as endearing, whereas for Jackson it’s used to paint her as unintelligent.

Difference is, nobody thought Scalia was unintelligent. Certainly nobody from the SC he was serving in.

 

[Confucamus]

Why was he not a DEI hire and why was the 1960s a different story?

I suggest you research Marshall's incredible work during the Civil Rights era and how big of a deal it was for him to be appointed to the Supreme Court at that time. If you really don't know the difference between the 1960's and today, no amount of explaining I can do will help you understand.

I don't think anyone who dislikes racists would want there to be more lol. I'd love to believe there were far less but unfortunately reality is a cruel bitch.

The epidemic of false race hoaxes in recent years would say otherwise.

How much time ya got?

C'mon, don't stall.

 

[BFoe]

Difference is, nobody thought Scalia was unintelligent. Certainly nobody from the SC he was serving in.

Right, but what I’m questioning is exactly why this perception exists.

Jackson is articulate and intelligent in her speech, she’s not stupid. Her decisions have plenty of the usual legalese and she lays out her reasoning with adequate citations to precedent like anyone else. Yet all that is ignored if she throws in some colorful language. Not so for the white Italian man. Lots of justices doing this to make their decisions more accessible to the public. Why is it an issue for her and not others?

People are siding with Barrett and calling KBJ unqualified—but she’s far more qualified than Barrett. And yet, the vibe ITT and what I’m seeing posted from social media in here, is that Barrett is to be taken seriously, whereas Jackson is viewed like court jester-like clown in a traveling minstrel show or some shit.

Even a moment ago when I listed Jackson’s qualifications, you just dismissed them wholesale—I mean with all that diversity stuff at the colleges, those don’t count! Now if you’re white, we can be assured your law degrees were the result of hard work and intelligence! Black justices? Psssh, they probably got theirs as a prize in a happy meal, right?

I’m just saying, there seem to be some pretty clear double standards going on. Obviously it begins with the Right not liking her decisions— but they didn’t like Breyer’s either, and he used colorful language, but no one painted him as a clown or idiot.