|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1715
|
TigerNet Legend [135442]
TigerPulse: 100%
67
Posts: 60348
Joined: 2009
|
|
|
|
 |
Letterman [170]
TigerPulse: 84%
12
|
Common sense is trying to return despite the kicking and screaming libs.***
3
Jun 27, 2025, 10:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8294]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
2
Jun 27, 2025, 10:38 AM
|
|
The judges will keep right on doing the same thing and ignoring the SC as they already have multiple times this year. Then the kooks can whine about how dictator Trump keeps on ignoring judges even though their rulings have no legal basis to exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8294]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
4
Jun 27, 2025, 10:52 AM
|
|
ACB torched Jackson's dissent. Basically said it was so dumb it didn't deserve a response. Thems fighting words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38221]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 43893
Joined: 2001
|
She shur did...hilarious***
2
Jun 27, 2025, 11:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5511]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17888
Joined: 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1503]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: Which means it was so well written than Barrett couldn't respond
2
Jun 27, 2025, 11:42 PM
|
|
without contradicting herself in the opinion.
She is still trying to figure out what the difference is between a man and woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Champion [7297]
TigerPulse: 100%
42
Posts: 11330
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [8294]
TigerPulse: 100%
43
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
2
Jun 28, 2025, 7:46 AM
|
|
Kagan is also on record as being against nationwide injunctions in 2022. Now suddenly she is all for them. Wonder what's changed? At least she isn't so stupid her fellow Justices appear to despise her and dismiss her arguments out of hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16542]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
1
Jun 28, 2025, 9:41 AM
|
|
Kagan in 2022-"It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process."
However, Trump shouldn't spike the ball. Samuel Alito-...."the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today's decision will be of little more than academic interest" if class action suits are allowed to proliferate against Trump's executive order.
The next fight will be over class action law suits against Trump's executive orders.
While I agree with the SCOTUS decision, I am totally against Trump or any other President issuing executive orders thereby essentially making law, a function that should be left to Congress, even as dysfunctional as it is.
The presidency is way too powerful, but a solution that puts more power into individual federal judges over the President is the wrong remedy and SCOTUS has corrected that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [34330]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17405
Joined: 2014
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
2
Jun 28, 2025, 10:56 AM
|
|
Thankfully, the days of the Judiciary acting as a legislative body are coming to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4426]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
Jun 28, 2025, 1:32 PM
|
|
Congress won’t do it…I guess they felt someone had to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [34330]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 17405
Joined: 2014
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
1
Jun 28, 2025, 2:52 PM
|
|
If that's the case, then I guess you could say the same of the Executive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Game Day Hero [4426]
TigerPulse: 96%
36
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
Jun 28, 2025, 4:30 PM
|
|
Meant to hit reply and gave you a TU instead…oh well…it was a good reply. I think the executive has way too much power…regardless of who it is. Thought the same thing with Biden as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [35433]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 19513
Joined: 2000
|
Re: SCOTUS rules that lower courts have gone to far
1
Jun 27, 2025, 10:13 PM
|
|
The leftist Dims have runed the balance of power with there endless lawfare b.s.
See what you did...hope your happy.
Oh, and ACB is right about Justice Jumanji too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet HOFer [122461]
TigerPulse: 100%
66
Posts: 78326
Joined: 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2149]
TigerPulse: 99%
32
|
Re: Seems the highest court in the land is the problem
Jun 27, 2025, 11:15 PM
|
|
That's only a half million dollar RV. No big deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paw Master [16542]
TigerPulse: 100%
51
|
It's common sense
2
Jun 28, 2025, 8:25 AM
|
|
For a single federal judge to be able to block a President on a nationwide basis is ridiculous.That judge certainly has the power to issue an injunction in the area that he or she has jurisdiction in, but to allow a single federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction is totally BS.
There are actually some conservative federal judges. Let's suppose Gavin Newsom gets elected in 2028-ugh, he issues an executive order banning this or that or putting forth a new directive and some federal judge in SC says nope Gavin, not only am I putting a hold on things in SC, I'm shutting you down nationwide. That's dumb and puts way too much power in the hands of a single federal judge.
Kagan was right before she was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1503]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: It's common sense
1
Jun 28, 2025, 8:47 AM
|
|
For a single federal judge to be able to block a President on a nationwide basis is ridiculous.That judge certainly has the power to issue an injunction in the area that he or she has jurisdiction in, but to allow a single federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction is totally BS.
There are actually some conservative federal judges. Let's suppose Gavin Newsom gets elected in 2028-ugh, he issues an executive order banning this or that or putting forth a new directive and some federal judge in SC says nope Gavin, not only am I putting a hold on things in SC, I'm shutting you down nationwide. That's dumb and puts way too much power in the hands of a single federal judge.
Kagan was right before she was wrong.
It basically comes down to the fact that if Trump is in office, many on this board will celebrate if an individual judge steps in as they do not like anything that Trump does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2149]
TigerPulse: 99%
32
|
Re: It's common sense
1
Jun 28, 2025, 8:49 AM
[ in reply to It's common sense ] |
|
I have to agree with you there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerNet HOFer [122461]
TigerPulse: 100%
66
Posts: 78326
Joined: 2003
|
right, this has never happened before
Jun 28, 2025, 10:06 AM
[ in reply to It's common sense ] |
|
Obama's DAPA program in 2015, or Clinton's Striker replacement order in 1995? Why was nobody crying then? And the SCOTUS did not rule that it was unconstitutional, as many of Trumps EO's are. When it began separating families, and innocent people were sent to a gulog with no due process, yup, a judge stepped in. Last I checked, it is the Judiciary's job to weigh in if something is constitutional, not the president. We have no immediate checks and balances now, EO's can be abused for personal power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5511]
TigerPulse: 44%
38
Posts: 17888
Joined: 2005
|
If something violates federal law in Tennessee
Jun 28, 2025, 1:29 PM
[ in reply to It's common sense ] |
|
why wouldn't it violate federal law Washington or Iowa?
There is no way you actually believe what you just posted. You would never be ok with your federal rights being violated just because a judge in your district hasn't ruled on it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1503]
TigerPulse: 93%
30
|
Re: If something violates federal law in Tennessee
Jun 28, 2025, 3:34 PM
|
|
why wouldn't it violate federal law Washington or Iowa?
There is no way you actually believe what you just posted. You would never be ok with your federal rights being violated just because a judge in your district hasn't ruled on it yet.
We have a federal law on marijuana, but many states have made it legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1715
|
|
|
50
