May 17May 17 1 hour ago, Gannan said:There’s so much irony to unpack here. I’ll come back later.https://www.welshfoodanddrink.wales/laverbread/
May 17May 17 Author Super interesting topic regarding the limitation of District courts to make a ruling of national injunction. I watched the massively pro-Trump Megyn Kelly talk about this and she gets it. She admitted she loved the national injunctions when it came to Biden policies and now doesn't know what to think. She wondered out loud whether it was "different under Trump" as the injunctions stop an "entire set of policy". Of course she didn't offer anything to indicate her understanding that Trump isn't your normal POTUS.
May 17May 17 6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:Super interesting topic regarding the limitation of District courts to make a ruling of national injunction. I watched the massively pro-Trump Megyn Kelly talk about this and she gets it. She admitted she loved the national injunctions when it came to Biden policies and now doesn't know what to think. She wondered out loud whether it was "different under Trump" as the injunctions stop an "entire set of policy". Of course she didn't offer anything to indicate her understanding that Trump isn't your normal POTUS.I think a solution would be for if a district court rules on something like this, then it gets super fast tracked to the circuit. Would be a way to mitigate having to wait too long.
May 17May 17 Author 30 minutes ago, Bill said:I think a solution would be for if a district court rules on something like this, then it gets super fast tracked to the circuit. Would be a way to mitigate having to wait too long.As long as there aren’t too many cases like that then yeah. Not sure how to keep it from becoming a default though. Some sort of criteria would help but what?
May 18May 18 11 hours ago, DrPhilly said:As long as there aren’t too many cases like that then yeah. Not sure how to keep it from becoming a default though. Some sort of criteria would help but what?well, the biggest help would be the legislature collectively pulling their heads out of their a**es and realizing that they’re the branch of government that makes the rules in the first place. A boy can dream, I guess. I suppose that for these cases if the US or a sitting President is named as a defendant, then you could fast track it.
May 18May 18 Author Not exactly a post that Trump should be reposting. Roberts and Kavanaugh live near the country club and are members there.
May 22May 22 Not necessarily trump vs the federal bench, but this is a blow to the Christian white nationalists movement that is influencing him. Supreme Court Affirms Oklahoma Supreme Court Ruling Rejecting Nation’s First Religious Public Charter School
May 29May 29 48 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:This can go in 3 different threadsAnd I'm sure you'll make it happen!
June 27Jun 27 34 minutes ago, vikas83 said:This ruling likely has larger ramifications than just those relating to birthright citizenship. As Congress did not confer upon district courts, the right to issue nationwide injunctions, district courts have no power to do so.Wow!! Huge win for the administration.
June 27Jun 27 Author 36 minutes ago, vikas83 said:I do think there is a need to set a standard though I would have thought this case would have met the standard.
June 27Jun 27 Author 1 minute ago, Procus said:This ruling likely has larger ramifications than just those relating to birthright citizenship. As Congress did not confer upon district courts, the right to issue nationwide injunctions, district courts have no power to do so.Wow!! Huge win for the administration.Looking at that limited info I don't think we can infer that the right to issue nationwide injunctions is gone. However, it is very clear that there is at minimum some standard that needs to be met. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.Personally, I would like some clear standard to be defined. I do not think the optimal outcome is "never" but equally it isn't "always" which is where we have been for some years now.
June 27Jun 27 8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:Looking at that limited info I don't think we can infer that the right to issue nationwide injunctions is gone. However, it is very clear that there is at minimum some standard that needs to be met. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.Personally, I would like some clear standard to be defined. I do not think the optimal outcome is "never" but equally it isn't "always" which is where we have been for some years now.Over time, we'll see whether or not this ruling does in fact effectively rein in the ability of a district judge to issue such an injunction. Key language from the opinion: "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,"https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-trumps-birthright-citizenship-order-major-test-lower-court-power
June 27Jun 27 44 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:Looking at that limited info I don't think we can infer that the right to issue nationwide injunctions is gone. However, it is very clear that there is at minimum some standard that needs to be met. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.Personally, I would like some clear standard to be defined. I do not think the optimal outcome is "never" but equally it isn't "always" which is where we have been for some years now.It seems pretty evident that this SCOTUS is adamant that things need standards, but so far it seems unwilling to actually, you know, set the standard.
June 27Jun 27 Author Just now, Bill said:It seems pretty evident that this SCOTUS is adamant that things need standards, but so far it seems unwilling to actually, you know, set the standard.Yep, that is what they will need to do at some point if they want to clean this up. In their defense, things have moved ridiculously fast since Trump has taken office. All part of the MAGA battle plan and SCOTUS just can't keep up though they are reacting far faster than at any time in history (far as I am aware). Actual fully argued rulings take lots of time and time is what we don't have now.
June 27Jun 27 Author 41 minutes ago, Procus said:Congress has granted federal courts no such powerYou'll have to decide if you want to take this type of position and apply it consistently to all three branches or not. So far I don't think you have done so. The same would apply to what the Constitution affords each branch.What say ye? Do you want to be held to this logic/protocol consistently for all three branches or do you want to pick and choose when you want to use this argument?
June 27Jun 27 Just now, DrPhilly said:You'll have to decide if you want to take this type of position and apply it consistently to all three branches or not. So far I don't think you have done so. The same would apply to what the Constitution affords each branch.What say ye? Do you want to be held to this logic/protocol consistently for all three branches or do you want to pick and choose when you want to use this argument?The ruling on based on the Constitution, not my decisions. District Courts were created by an Act of Congress as directly provided for in the Constitution.
June 27Jun 27 14 minutes ago, Bill said:It seems pretty evident that this SCOTUS is adamant that things need standards, but so far it seems unwilling to actually, you know, set the standard.Precisely - because such standards lie within the purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court.
June 27Jun 27 Author 3 minutes ago, Procus said:The ruling on based on the Constitution, not my decisions. District Courts were created by an Act of Congress as directly provided for in the Constitution.Don't dodge my question please. Are you going to apply this logic consistently or not?
Create an account or sign in to comment