17 minutes ago, Procus said:

Absolutely not true. They did establish that in some cases this is true but they didn't tell us what those cases look like other than this specific one.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

His typical approach.

So tell me what "tests" he is referring to.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Absolutely not true. They did establish that in some cases this is true but they didn't tell us what those cases look like other than this specific one.

This ruling today seems to have gotten under your skin. Legally, it is well founded.

Wow, you're telling me a bunch of democrat installed openly political activist judges were misinterpreting the constitution? This is very surprising news.

The Supreme Court supports Dictatorship.

28 minutes ago, Procus said:

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

Birthright citizenship is literally in the constitution.

9 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Wow, you're telling me a bunch of democrat installed openly political activist judges were misinterpreting the constitution? This is very surprising news.

Watching Procus and KZ team up be like...

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Birthright citizenship is literally in the constitution.

And the ruling today left open the question regarding the scope of that constitutional provision (which is in the 14th amendment) since that was not the issue before the court. Today's ruling merely went to authority of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

And you call yourself a professor? I wouldn't want any of my kids to be in your class if you can't even read a case properly.

Just now, Procus said:

And the ruling today left open the question regarding the scope of that constitutional provision (which is in the 14th amendment) since that was not the issue before the court. Today's ruling merely went to authority of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

There's no way you have even flirted with the legal profession. You can't even construct a basic argument.

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Watching Procus and KZ team up be like...

Watching your crocodile tears over the ruling by the highest court in the land today could not be any sweeter.

I still think this is very odd -- if the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs, then how do we not have a violation of the equal protection clause?

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Watching your crocodile tears over the ruling by the highest court in the land today could not be any sweeter.

I told you I'm psyched for it. Student loan forgiveness and green new deal here we come. Looking forward to an assault weapons ban that can't be stopped by court injunction as well.

28 minutes ago, Procus said:

This ruling today seems to have gotten under your skin.

No, the ruling is lacking but they will move this one ahead eventually so I find it "founded". What I don't like is the room it will give to Miller and Bondi to pursue their evil ways in the meantime. The two of them will end up in jail if the Dems every regain control. You are just the empty vessel that I have available to me to beetch at a bit.

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I told you I'm psyched for it. Student loan forgiveness and green new deal here we come. Looking forward to an assault weapons ban that can't be stopped by court injunction as well.

Really? You do realize that the Executive Orders regarding student loan forgiveness and relating to the 'green new deal' issued by Biden can be rescinded by EO's issued by Trump.

How you got in the position to teach anybody is beyond me 🤣

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

No, the ruling is lacking but they will move this one ahead eventually so I find it "founded". What I don't like is the room it will give to Miller and Bondi to pursue their evil ways in the meantime. The two of them will end up in jail if the Dems every regain control. You are just the empty vessel that I have available to me to beetch at a bit.

So tell us, what is the authority that was conferred upon district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. We're all ears.

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Really? You do realize that the Executive Orders regarding student loan forgiveness and relating to the 'green new deal' issued by Biden can be rescinded by EO's issued by Trump.

How you got in the position to teach anybody is beyond me 🤣

And Trump's executive orders can be rescinded by President AOC.

Trump hasn't gotten a single piece of legislation passed. He can't even get his stupid budget plan passed when his party controls both the house and the senate.

12 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I still think this is very odd -- if the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs, then how do we not have a violation of the equal protection clause?

That's a mighty big rabbit hole you're opening up there. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been the subject of complex litigation for quite a while. It primarily goes to discrimination issues - such as those relating to race, ethnicity, religion and the like. Here's a snippet of the scope of its interpretation:

AI Overview

The Equal Protection Clause, found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, mandates that states cannot deny any person within their jurisdiction equal protection under the law. This means that individuals in similar situations should be treated similarly by the government and the law. While the Fourteenth Amendment primarily applies to states, the Supreme Court has extended its principles to the federal government as well. 

Key aspects of the Equal Protection Clause:

• Prohibition of Discrimination:

  The clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against individuals or groups without a valid reason. 

2. Equal Treatment:

   It requires that individuals in similar circumstances be treated equally by the government and the legal system. 

4. Levels of Scrutiny:

   The Supreme Court has established different levels of scrutiny to review equal protection challenges, including strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis review, depending on the type of classification involved. 

6. Fifth Amendment Application:

   While the Equal Protection Clause is in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has applied similar principles to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment. 

8. Landmark Cases:

   Many landmark Supreme Court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges, have involved interpretations and applications of the Equal Protection Clause. 

10. Ongoing Relevance:

    The Equal Protection Clause continues to be a vital part of constitutional law, shaping discussions and legal challenges related to equality and discrimination. 

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

And Trump's executive orders can be rescinded by President AOC.

If the USA ever gets suicidal enough to elect AOC as president, then yes, she can rescind Trump's EO's

42 minutes ago, Gannan said:

And Trump's executive orders can be rescinded by President AOC.

Please, please, PLEASE run an annoying woman for President again! I beg of you, do it for the rest of time. 🙏🏻

1 hour ago, Procus said:

What "tests" are you referring to?

The various scrutiny tests, clear and present danger, ...

1 minute ago, BBE said:

The various scrutiny tests, clear and present danger, ...

They really don't apply to the issue that was before the Supreme Court.

Certain scrutiny tests apply to equal protection matters of the type that Vikas brought up. Clear and present danger tests are applied when determining whether free speech can be restricted - like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.

Just now, Procus said:

They really don't apply to the issue that was before the Supreme Court.

Certain scrutiny tests apply to equal protection matters of the type that Vikas brought up. Clear and present danger tests are applied when determining whether free speech can be restricted - like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none.

And my point was rather than create the mess they did, create a test by which a case may have the scope to merit a nationwide injunction. Instead they resorted to similar reasoning that was used in the rejection of another legal case because of filing location.

And while doing so, created an executive that can rule by decree. This is the stain on the Roberts court that will never be removed.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

And Trump's executive orders can be rescinded by President AOC.

Trump hasn't gotten a single piece of legislation passed. He can't even get his stupid budget plan passed when his party controls both the house and the senate.

I don't know about that. SCOTUS stopped Trump from rescinding some of Obama's EO's.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I still think this is very odd -- if the injunction only applies to the plaintiffs, then how do we not have a violation of the equal protection clause?

This is actually a very good point.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

And my point was rather than create the mess they did, create a test by which a case may have the scope to merit a nationwide injunction. Instead they resorted to similar reasoning that was used in the rejection of another legal case because of filing location.

And while doing so, created an executive that can rule by decree. This is the stain on the Roberts court that will never be removed.

The problem with that is that district courts are created by statute, and their jurisdiction is limited by the statutes that created them.

And no, it does not create an executive who can rule by decree. While the constitution creates an executive branch with strong powers, they are not unlimited. There is nothing in the ruling today I saw which restricts the ability of district courts to rule that an executive order is unconstitutional. It just restricts the ability of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. These injunctions are not limited to matters relating to executive orders. Such injunctions have issued regarding other matters such as regulations, administrative agency actions, government policies, etc.