‘A Moral, Ethical, Legal, Constitutional Travesty’
- Thread starter berg80
- Start date
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Do you believe that the SC can "change" the Constitution?
OhPleaseJustQuit
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2021
- 73,838
- 86,928
- 3,488
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 33,263
- 27,119
- 2,820
- Thread starter
- #84
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson characterized the Trump administration’s position as creating a “catch-me-if-you-can regime,” where court rulings protect only the people involved in individual cases. The government, she said, argued that it would get to keep doing illegal acts until everyone who is potentially harmed by those acts hired a lawyer and filed suit.Get a couple more liberals, and you can debate it.....
When pressed by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, said “it is a feature, not a bug” that courts grant relief only to the people who are in front of them, not to other people who did not bother to sue.
What a bizarre line of defense. Suggesting every person of the potential thousands of people who can show harm done at the hands of the government over an illegal act would need to go to court. It's ludicrous.
Last edited:
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Republicans are infamous for their hypocrisy.
They have no issues with universal injunctions when a Democrat controls the WH.
Nope. I'm saying that the government needs to find a loophole allowing them to REINTERPRET the Birthright Clause of the 14th.
Not "changing:" the Constitution.
REINTERPRETING it.
Happens often enough.
The Dredd Scott case is an excellent early example, once conditions had changed.
Mac-7
Diamond Member
- Oct 9, 2019
- 88,519
- 66,589
- 3,565
The Constitution means whatever 5 black robes say it means
I am not predicting a win for trump
But it can go either way
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Democrats believe that is the case...They would do away with the Constitution, and expand the courts with like minded Democrats if they thought they could get away with it...
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 29,663
- 11,195
- 465
Maybe you should disprove the point instead of running your slack jawed maw.
SeaMajor7
Diamond Member
Your illogical disdain of President Trump is insufferable.
Tumble on, stumblebum.
LAUGHatLEFTISTS
Diamond Member
- Jan 22, 2020
- 20,030
- 18,347
- 2,290
Show us the words birthright citizenship in the constitution. We will wait.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court takes up a deceptively simple legal question that happens to be one of the most consequential of the second Trump era so far: Can district court judges block executive actions throughout the whole country?
The use of so-called nationwide injunctions has been controversial within legal circles for years, but President Donald Trump’s second term has brought the practice to the forefront of American politics. Many of the administration’s signature initiatives have been blocked or temporarily put on hold as a result of nationwide injunctions, and Trump officials have expressed outrage and indignation at the notion that lower court judges can stymie their work — despite the fact that Trump and White House officials like Stephen Miller often sought or championed such injunctions against the Biden administration.
The oral arguments were prompted by a series of injunctions blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, though it is unclear whether or to what extent the justices will address the underlying merits of the executive order, which have been roundly rejected by every court and virtually every independent analyst that has considered the matter.
Partisan politics aside, the legal question about injunctions is a legitimately tricky one — even among experts with similar political outlooks.
To hash out this debate, we’ve convened two experts — both liberals, and both ardent opponents of Trump’s political program — who sharply disagree about nationwide injunctions. (The term, as we discuss, is a slight misnomer; the key legal question is whether courts can grant “relief” that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.)
Trump and allies celebrated court orders against Biden they now claim are ‘tyrannical’
So........the regime is being hypocritical. Imagine my surprise. I doubt conservatives had a problem with this ruling from a district court judge being enforced nationwide.
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo could potentially upend access to medication abortion nationwide.www.texastribune.org
All that aside, there's quite a bit at stake here. If there are valid legal arguments to be made on both sides it seems like a fait accompli as to who will prevail with a SC packed with ultra conservatives.
What silly melodrama. Because you're clueless, DIE hire Jackson, Sotomayor are not ultra conservative.
Similarly, it's kinda' fair to start with the presumption that you're a moron.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
As the raw power of one profoundly damaged "man" continues to grow, I can't help but wonder what's going on behind the scenes.
They know that losing future presidential elections would be handing all these expanded executive powers over to a Democratic president. I can't imagine they would want to take that risk.
So why are they willing to do this? Unless they don't plan on....
... well, you know.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,760
- 14,935
- 2,180
There needs to be a debate about executive orders and how far they can go. What power does the President actually have, and when does it usurp Congress?On Thursday, the Supreme Court takes up a deceptively simple legal question that happens to be one of the most consequential of the second Trump era so far: Can district court judges block executive actions throughout the whole country?
The use of so-called nationwide injunctions has been controversial within legal circles for years, but President Donald Trump’s second term has brought the practice to the forefront of American politics. Many of the administration’s signature initiatives have been blocked or temporarily put on hold as a result of nationwide injunctions, and Trump officials have expressed outrage and indignation at the notion that lower court judges can stymie their work — despite the fact that Trump and White House officials like Stephen Miller often sought or championed such injunctions against the Biden administration.
The oral arguments were prompted by a series of injunctions blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, though it is unclear whether or to what extent the justices will address the underlying merits of the executive order, which have been roundly rejected by every court and virtually every independent analyst that has considered the matter.
Partisan politics aside, the legal question about injunctions is a legitimately tricky one — even among experts with similar political outlooks.
To hash out this debate, we’ve convened two experts — both liberals, and both ardent opponents of Trump’s political program — who sharply disagree about nationwide injunctions. (The term, as we discuss, is a slight misnomer; the key legal question is whether courts can grant “relief” that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.)
Trump and allies celebrated court orders against Biden they now claim are ‘tyrannical’
So........the regime is being hypocritical. Imagine my surprise. I doubt conservatives had a problem with this ruling from a district court judge being enforced nationwide.
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo could potentially upend access to medication abortion nationwide.
All that aside, there's quite a bit at stake here. If there are valid legal arguments to be made on both sides it seems like a fait accompli as to who will prevail with a SC packed with ultra conservatives.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
You make a trolling, inflammatory, and bigoted comment, somebody responds, and you make this stupid ass statement trying to demean the poster for even responding to your BS comment. You are a troll, a regressive troll.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
Perhaps all those "equal but separate powers" thing I've heard about for so long wasn't true?
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 54,760
- 14,935
- 2,180
The whole system is creaking badly.
Sometimes you need to have people in power who can do things, however it needs to be harder to get into office.
In the UK, not a great system with FPTP, you need to be an MP first, then become PM, and you need the support of your party and of the electorate and it can change pretty quickly, look at Liz "disaster" Truss.
In Switzerland to get on the 7 person executive you have to be a member of parliament and all parties need to agree to your appointment.
Not just the US system of you win the primaries and then there's a two horse race.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 160,049
- 86,475
- 2,645
It’s a legitimate question that SCOTUS needed to addressOn Thursday, the Supreme Court takes up a deceptively simple legal question that happens to be one of the most consequential of the second Trump era so far: Can district court judges block executive actions throughout the whole country?
The use of so-called nationwide injunctions has been controversial within legal circles for years, but President Donald Trump’s second term has brought the practice to the forefront of American politics. Many of the administration’s signature initiatives have been blocked or temporarily put on hold as a result of nationwide injunctions, and Trump officials have expressed outrage and indignation at the notion that lower court judges can stymie their work — despite the fact that Trump and White House officials like Stephen Miller often sought or championed such injunctions against the Biden administration.
The oral arguments were prompted by a series of injunctions blocking Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship, though it is unclear whether or to what extent the justices will address the underlying merits of the executive order, which have been roundly rejected by every court and virtually every independent analyst that has considered the matter.
Partisan politics aside, the legal question about injunctions is a legitimately tricky one — even among experts with similar political outlooks.
To hash out this debate, we’ve convened two experts — both liberals, and both ardent opponents of Trump’s political program — who sharply disagree about nationwide injunctions. (The term, as we discuss, is a slight misnomer; the key legal question is whether courts can grant “relief” that applies to parties who are not litigating before them.)
Trump and allies celebrated court orders against Biden they now claim are ‘tyrannical’
So........the regime is being hypocritical. Imagine my surprise. I doubt conservatives had a problem with this ruling from a district court judge being enforced nationwide.
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
Federal judge in Texas suspends FDA approval of abortion pill
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo could potentially upend access to medication abortion nationwide.
All that aside, there's quite a bit at stake here. If there are valid legal arguments to be made on both sides it seems like a fait accompli as to who will prevail with a SC packed with ultra conservatives.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Jasmine Crockett STORMS OUT of her own event after crying “they cheated!”- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
Goldman Sachs’ Ruemmler, Bill Gates, Leon Black will testify to House panel
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
-
Zone1 For what it’s worth, I want you all to know I appreciate you being here with me.- Started by Anomalism
- Replies: 1
