3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Precisely - because such standards lie within the purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court.

Not exactly. SCOTUS regularly issues clarifying language with rulings that set standards based on current law. Been doing that forever.

So according to the Trumpers, it was unlawful that the district court struck down Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness? Do I have that right? So when we get President AOC she will be able to give us the green new deal via executive order and the courts can't block it? Sounds good.

Just now, Gannan said:

So according to the Trumpers, it was unlawful that the district court struck down Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness? Do I have that right? So when we get President AOC she will be able to give us the green new deal via executive order and the courts can't block it? Sounds good.

This event will be the last one in shaking out those that actually are Originalists or even Traditionalists vs. those that only pretend to be so when it is convenient for their agenda.

7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

This event will be the last one in shaking out those that actually are Originalists or even Traditionalists vs. those that only pretend to be so when it is convenient for their agenda.

SCOTUS made a right fine mess of things with this decision. Rather than provide a test for when a nationwide injunction should be placed, we get this decision which has now effectively created a mosaic across the country where birthright citizenship is varies by state.

And now, the executive is unchecked in matters that affect the country as a whole.

22 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Don't dodge my question please. Are you going to apply this logic consistently or not?

It's not a well founded question

25 minutes ago, Procus said:

Precisely - because such standards lie within the purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court.

That is not true. There are many "tests" that have been created by SCOTUS.

41 minutes ago, BBE said:

That is not true. There are many "tests" that have been created by SCOTUS.

We're referring to district courts, not the Supreme Court. District Courts are a creation of Congress. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution.

41 minutes ago, Procus said:

It's not a well founded question

Bollocks, you simply don't want to answer. A no answer is the same as saying "you will interpret everything based on your agenda". That is the answer everyone in here would expect you to give, i.e. no answer.

🤣

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Precisely - because such standards lie within the purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court.

1 minute ago, Procus said:

We're referring to district courts, not the Supreme Court. District Courts are a creation of Congress. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution.

We were discussing the Supreme Court, see your earlier post.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

Precisely - because such standards lie within the purview of Congress, not the Supreme Court.

No, case law has set standards since for centuries. The act of interpretation itself is setting a standard.

Aren't you the one who is a lawyer?

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

We were discussing the Supreme Court, see your earlier post.

We are discussing a Supreme Court ruling restricting the ability of District Courts to issue injunctions.

6 minutes ago, Procus said:

We're referring to district courts, not the Supreme Court. District Courts are a creation of Congress. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution.

And district courts can make rulings based upon those tests. You are obfuscating.

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Aren't you the one who is a lawyer?

no, but he's watched a ton of matlock at the senior living center.

Just now, Alpha_TATEr said:

no, but he's watched a ton of matlock at the senior living center.

I was always more fond of old people who watched JAG.

Oh wow this is really surprising because she seemed to be doing such a good job.

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, case law has set standards since for centuries. The act of interpretation itself is setting a standard.

Aren't you the one who is a lawyer?

Stare decisis does not trump the Constitution. The body of federal common law is much smaller than the body common law in the states which goes back to English roots.

I don't think you understand the derivation of law and interplay between constitutional, statutory and common law.

6 minutes ago, BBE said:

And district courts can make rulings based upon those tests. You are obfuscating.

What "tests" are you referring to?

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

So according to the Trumpers, it was unlawful that the district court struck down Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness? Do I have that right? So when we get President AOC she will be able to give us the green new deal via executive order and the courts can't block it? Sounds good.

There is a difference between striking down a law as being unconstitutional and issuing a nationwide injunction.

7 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

no, but he's watched a ton of matlock at the senior living center.

Being both retarded AND miserable is a terrible combination 😂

Could only imagine how Justice Barrett would react to some of these posts appearing in this thread today.

15 minutes ago, Procus said:

We are discussing a Supreme Court ruling restricting the ability of District Courts to issue injunctions.

No sheet Sherlock. We are talking about how SCOTUS can set standards. In this case the standards would apply to the District Courts ability to render a nationwide injunction.

16 minutes ago, BBE said:

And district courts can make rulings based upon those tests. You are obfuscating.

His typical approach.