Left-Wingers Enter New Depths of Rage Over Supreme Court's Nationwide Injunction Ruling

[SweetTea]

I'm reaching with that, I know. I'd love to be proven completely wrong.

You can take solace in the fact that you will be.

 

[22lcidw]

I'm talking about what we were discussing above. They're going so far that they have to know it would be reversed if they lose.

And I believe this is neofascism. Not Trump. He's just the tool. But they already tried fake electors, they've already made voting more difficult in some areas. And they have too much to protect now.

I'm reaching with that, I know. I'd love to be proven completely wrong.

What we are at, is the peak of our nation spread out over a period of years with ups and downs. Greatness takes sacrifice. Real sacrifice.

 

[OldFlame]

I've explained it 'till I turned blue in the face. If I thought you were rational and reasonable, I'd indulge your request. But we both know better.

Where?

 

[OldFlame]

I'm apprehensive about the ruling and see it as a loss for those of us that distrust government by executive order. For those celebrating now, imagine the delight you'll have about the matter when the Democrats gain the office.

Yet Biden's EO's were blocked 14 times while Trump's have been blocked 64, it was never an intent for a district court to issue nationwide injunctions, so I think we'll be fine. The SC got it right.

 

[dblack]

Imagine if both conservative and liberal judges around the nation issued injunctions of every president's policies based on politics. How do you think that would work out?

It would work a lot better than just giving them free rein.

Why should a lone judge, who is way down the hierarchy, be given so much power? The SC made the correct ruling.

So, when the Ds come back into power and start issuing gun-grabbing EOs - we'll just have to wait until we can get it before the SC to stop them. How many guns will they be able to grab in the meantime? You really ok with that?

Can't you see that limits on Presidential power protect you, even if they might frustrate you at times?

 

[OldFlame]

It would work a lot better than just giving them free rein.

So, when the Ds come back into power and start issuing gun-grabbing EOs - we'll just have to wait until we can get it before the SC to stop them. How many guns will they be able to grab in the meantime? You really ok with that?

Can't you see that limits on Presidential power protect you, even if they might frustrate you at times?

This is not removing limits on Presidential power, it's removing power from political hacks using the court system to undermine the will of the voters. Your example would be expedited to the SC where it would be summarily shot down. What do we do then when a president ignores the SC as Biden did with student loan forgiveness, just like any president could obviously ignore district court injunctions as well.

 

[dblack]

This is not removing limits on Presidential power, it's removing power from political hacks using the court system to undermine the will of the voters.

Sigh... sure, sure.

Your example would be expedited to the SC where it would be summarily shot down.

It will still take months and you know that. That's WHY you consider this decision a victory. You just can't get it through your head that it will be used against you.

I really think the underlying dysfunction of all of this is the concept of the "culture war". Party loyalists have convinced themselves they are at war, and doing anything necessary to win is excusable. Even if it rots our country from the inside out.

 

[Billiejeens]

Well yeah, fascism tends to piss thinking people off.

Deal with it, whack-job.

I admit that Kagan shows an ability to think on occasion.

The other two - absolutely not.

 

[Billiejeens]

Sigh... sure, sure.

It will still take months and you know that. That's WHY you consider this decision a victory. You just can't get it through your head that it will be used against you.

I really think the underlying dysfunction of all of this is the concept of the "culture war". Party loyalists have convinced themselves they are at war, and doing anything necessary to win is excusable. Even if it rots our country from the inside out.

The ruling literally didn't change anything.
Prior to President Trump these nationwide rulings didn't exist.

It returned the system to the default setting.

You may not like the default setting
But you need to change it legally, if not.

 

[dblack]

The ruling literally didn't change anything.

Then why do you consider the decision a victory? Or necessary? Or meaningful in any way?

 

[Billiejeens]

Then why do you consider the decision victory? Or necessary? Or meaningful in any way?

Clearly a series of lower courts had gone rogue.

Would it not be a good thing to stop that?

 

[OldFlame]

Sigh... sure, sure.

It will still take months and you know that. That's WHY you consider this decision a victory. You just can't get it through your head that it will be used against you.

I really think the underlying dysfunction of all of this is the concept of the "culture war". Party loyalists have convinced themselves they are at war, and doing anything necessary to win is excusable. Even if it rots our country from the inside out.

All you can say is 'sure, sure', you have no rebuttal.

Something as extreme as what you pontificated on would not take months.

You still haven't given any real world examples for what you say, as I said, it's easy to make off the cuff remarks like it's going to 'rot our country from the inside out'. Comments like that are a dime a dozen on sites like these, they're given without giving any reason for WHY. Most of the time that's because the poster hasn't a clue on the 'why', they just like repeating talking points that are meaningless. Or they have 'TDS' and their only reason why is OMB, which is the category that you fit into.

 

[dblack]

All you can say is 'sure, sure', you have no rebuttal.

It was there. I guess you didn't read it.

Something as extreme as what you pontificated on would not take months.

Ok. So why do you consider this decision a "victory"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you don't believe that illegals' births are like diplomat births, not citizens because they are citizens of other countries, not under the "jurisdiction" of the US?

No. The 14th Amendment specifically mentions diplomats. It says nothing about illegals because there was no such thing. We need to change the Constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If there is a proper case to be brought.

Given all the crying on the left, I have to wonder when they will start moving to Cuba to enjoy more freedom?

No one has been denied citizenship yet because if their birth certificate says they were born here, they are given a driver's license and allowed to vote with no question.

My question for the Trump administration is how will they enforce this law? The only way I can think is passing a law requiring all states to list the citizenship of both parents on the birth certificate. Also, will they deny citizenship to everyone born of an illegal in the past? How will they know? My wife's father had no birth certificate as he was born at home in 1917. Are they sure he wasn't an illegal? He did have a foreign sounding last name!

They did ask for the birthplace of my parents on the application for a passport last week, but that information came from me and not my birth certificate. How do they know I didn't lie?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm apprehensive about the ruling and see it as a loss for those of us that distrust government by executive order. For those celebrating now, imagine the delight you'll have about the matter when the Democrats gain the office.

Those EOs can still be challenged, just not at the district court level. They have to be interpretated by a court with national jurisdiction, i.e. SCOTUS.

 

[dblack]

Those EOs can still be challenged, just not at the district court level. They have to be interpretated by a court with national jurisdiction, i.e. SCOTUS.

Which is why you all consider this a "win". It gives you more leeway to do unconstitutional shit before it's blocked by the SC.

 

[hadit]

This decision allows the government to violate the Constitution with no immediate repercussions.

Where is the lower court judge to put a stay on this decision? Isn't that what everyone is saying they want?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which is why you all consider this a "win". It gives you more leeway to do unconstitutional shit before it's blocked by the SC.

Not in the least. Where do you think having Judge Nicky Schmucketelli in the Northern District of New Jersey elling me how to do things in Tennessee is a good thing? Is that OK with you?

 

[dblack]

Not in the least. Where do you think having Judge Nicky Schmucketelli in the Northern District of New Jersey elling me how to do things in Tennessee is a good thing? Is that OK with you?

Absolutely. Anything that block this rule be EO shit is an improvement.