Obama SCOTUS judge KAGAN was against nationwide injunctions under Biden, now she is for it under Trump…which one is it?

[Concerned American]

Thread up.

Thread 'Justice Kagan Opposed Nationwide Injunctions Just a Few Years Ago'

Jun 28, 2025

So she is on record in 2022 as opposing nationwide injunctions.

But this week she signed on to a dissent in which didn't oppose them.

Odd, eh?

​

“It just can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022 at Northwestern University’s law school, “that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/us/politics/several-supreme-court-justices-have-been-critical-of-nationwide-injunctions.html

• excalibur
• Replies: 6
• Forum: Current Events

• 
• 

Kagan is as stupid as Ketanji

 

[ColonelAngus]

Interesting how few of our USMB lefties are posting in this thread.

I wonder if Clarence Thomas did that same thing if they would ignore it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is a great ruling by SCOTUS and the only reason lefties do not like it is because they cannot get some communist judge in Idaho to block Trump from accomplishing his platform.

 

[hadit]

This is a great ruling by SCOTUS and the only reason lefties do not like it is because they cannot get some communist judge in Idaho to block Trump from accomplishing his platform.

Now all they need is a lower court judge to issue a proclamation staying implementation of the SC decision. We'd see all the liberals on here lining up to clap their flippers and honk their horns in support.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

She said “ONE DISTRICT JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO STOP A NATIONWIDE POLICY IN ITS TRACKS.” In 2022.

Now she flip flopped.

Now she says nationwide injunctions are totally acceptable!

Which one is it?

This is why both sides appoint partisan Supreme Court justices. Like interpreting laws or insurance policies, there is (almost) always a way to defend either side. It is no surprise that judges are biased based on their life indoctrination, every bit as much as one is biased towards the religion they were told by their elders is "true". So, Hagan is biased, and now that it is her side that was using injunctions like handing out Halloween candy, she is in favor of them.

An amusing (I think) reason why I am here from another forum is because they have a team of moderators there who are far left liberals and look to suspend and ban people for the slightest infraction. Their rules are arbitrary and subjective. You can't call people a liar, by a different name or insult them, etc. I posted essentially my post in the first paragraph and said that the monitors on the site were just as biased as judges. The site owner went haywire and said I knew I wasn't supposed to criticize monitors and suspended me. He didn't want to admit that his monitors were biased. Nor do politicians or judges want to admit they are.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This is why both sides appoint partisan Supreme Court justices. Like interpreting laws or insurance policies, there is (almost) always a way to defend either side. It is no surprise that judges are biased based on their life indoctrination, every bit as much as one is biased towards the religion they were told by their elders is "true". So, Lagan is biased, and now that it is her side that was using injunctions like Halloween candy, she is in favor of them.

So sad for someone on the ******* SUPREME COURT.

There should be an interpretation of the Constitution that may vary by judge. But a judge’s interpretation of the Constitution should not vary according to who is in the White House.

That is Buuuuuuullshit.

 

[OldFlame]

She should be replaced, she demonstrated complete lack of integrity.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

So sad for someone on the ******* SUPREME COURT.

There should be an interpretation of the Constitution that may vary by judge. But a judge’s interpretation of the Constitution should not vary according to who is in the White House.

That is Buuuuuuullshit.

What is bullshit is for someone to assert that once someone reaches a certain level their biases disappear. That is Pollyannaish. In rare cases, the law is so clear that a judge cannot read it or interpret it any other way. It is apparent that time after time a judge and SC judges make rulings and interpretations based on their ideology rather than what the law says. This is why a president pushes judges with his same politics.

 

[ColonelAngus]

What is bullshit is for someone to assert that once someone reaches a certain level their biases disappear. That is Pollyannaish. In rare cases, the law is so clear that a judge cannot read it or interpret it any other way. It is apparent that time after time a judge and SC judges make rulings and interpretations based on their ideology rather than what the law says. This is why a president pushes judges with his same politics.

Just call me Polly. Good novel for historical perspective of kiddy lit.

I get the deal. It is unfortunate that judges with clear unconstitutional biases are put on the bench. I do not think Thomas has changed his interpretation of the Constitution based on who is in the WH,

Thanks for the chat.

Polly wanna cracker.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Just call me Polly. Good novel for historical perspective of kiddy lit.

I get the deal. It is unfortunate that judges with clear unconstitutional biases are put on the bench. I do not think Thomas has changed his interpretation of the Constitution based on who is in the WH,

Thanks for the chat.

Polly wanna cracker.

He is solid for conservative rulings, which I like. But just because he is a Republican does not mean that he is above bias. We are all biased and putting on a robe doesn't change that, whether you are a priest or a judge.

 

[Blaster]

Kagan does the bidding of Democrats.

 

[jc456]

He is solid for conservative rulings, which I like. But just because he is a Republican does not mean that he is above bias. We are all biased and putting on a robe doesn't change that, whether you are a priest or a judge.

he is a constitutionalist. always.

Barrett just showed us that Jackson does not follow the constitution. Out fking loud.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

he is a constitutionalist. always.

Barrett just showed us that Jackson does not follow the constitution. Out fking loud.

I agree 100%. She is a rank partisan activist.

 

[Concerned American]

This is a great ruling by SCOTUS and the only reason lefties do not like it is because they cannot get some communist judge in Idaho to block Trump from accomplishing his platform.

LOL, not likely coming from ID. Maybe OR or WA or CA.

 

[justoffal]

I thought judges were supposed to apply to law the same regardless of those involved.

Thats a basic tenet of law school. You test it both ways and apply it equally.

NOW WE HAVE A SCOTUS JUDGE THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW A BASIC RULE FROM THE FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL?

******* WOW.

Yeah....But they don't....

 

[toobfreak]

Now she flip flopped.
Now she says nationwide injunctions are totally acceptable!

Trump has a way of bending democrat brains.
Suddenly now, it makes perfect sense to a USSC justice that despite the constitution creating HER COURT as a balance against presidential excesses, she now believes that every president should answer to 670 unelected district judges that no president can get anything done unless he/she and this judge and this judge and this judge and that judge and 666 other judges ALL agree to let it pass.

Like a Christmas light, if just one of those 670 installed judges disagrees, the president can't do it.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I cannot stress enough how ridiculous it is that a PRINCETON, HARVARD, AND OXFORD graduate does not apply THE RULE OF LAW to her decisions.

Absolutely incredible.

 

[Mashmont]

She said “ONE DISTRICT JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO STOP A NATIONWIDE POLICY IN ITS TRACKS.” In 2022.

Now she flip flopped.

Now she says nationwide injunctions are totally acceptable!

Which one is it?

The short-fingered former softball player is a disgrace to the Court as are the other two leftwing women.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The short-fingered former softball player is a disgrace to the Court as are the other two leftwing women.

Lefties live by double standards. They have no principles, they only echo whatever their power structure tells them to think.