- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Supreme Court Set To End Era Of Nationwide Judicial Injunctions
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fact the USSC picked this case makes it hard for me to imagine THIS is the case they'd want to use, with the plainly illegal status of the EO and the drastic impact non-injunction would create.
Both the Likelihood of Irreparable Harm and Likelihood of success standards are clearly met with this particular EO.
The more lesser, less established cases? Those seem like much better opportunities to address the issue.
I actually agree with you on this. You still aren't getting an upvote though.
1
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:07 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Why would anyone be convinced the SC rules in favor of MAGA?
If they are neutral arbiters like they should be, this should be a slam dunk case in favor of Trump. If they are biased like it's clear Roberts and Amy are, and they rule that way, they could screw us.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:08 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
what qould such a case look like?
Low hanging fruit: deportation of A person who is a citizen only via birthright citizenship with illegal parents
It's not the easiest thing to conceptualize up front because citizenship is assumed in so many interactions. So the state action would have to be quite overt
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:12 pm to Adajax
quote:
The EO is illegal? As in Trump broke the law in writing it? Which law did it break? Are the Dems gonna charge Trump with a crime again? Are you really a lawyer?
Not every illegal act is criminal
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
I agree with Slo Pro, they will address the legal status of those born in the US and totally sidestep the nationwide injunctions, leading to more chaos.
What a chicken shat copout, but consistent with their clear as mud decisions of late.
What a chicken shat copout, but consistent with their clear as mud decisions of late.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:27 pm to deeprig9
quote:
I actually agree with you on this. You still aren't getting an upvote though.
I agree. It seems like they’re purposely picking a losing argument.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:29 pm to Longdriver98
quote:
The woke soro's/obama justices will just ignore the Supreme Court
Ignoring goes both ways
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:31 pm to Adajax
quote:
Are you really a lawyer?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 5:41 pm to Stealth Matrix
The point is, there are now dozens of cases with nationwide TROs. They could have picked an easy one months ago, where a local judge stopped the executive branch from terminating someone and applied it nationwide.
Instead they pick this one, will vote against birthright citizenship, because it does in fact impact the entire nation, and never address the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Instead they pick this one, will vote against birthright citizenship, because it does in fact impact the entire nation, and never address the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 6:42 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
The point is, there are now dozens of cases with nationwide TROs. They could have picked an easy one months ago, where a local judge stopped the executive branch from terminating someone and applied it nationwide.
Instead they pick this one, will vote against birthright citizenship, because it does in fact impact the entire nation, and never address the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Yeah I can't imagine someone invested in opposing the nationwide injunction issue feeling good THIS case is the one that will determine it.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 6:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fact the USSC picked this case makes it hard for me to imagine THIS is the case they'd want to use, with the plainly illegal status of the EO and the drastic impact non-injunction would create.
I don't think you would be saying that if you had read the Governments application to SCOTUS. Quoting form the Government application
"But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a “modest” request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should “restrict the scope” of multiple preliminary injunctions that “purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,” limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power"
4 of the justices have expressed concerns about these universal injunctions. The is no way the 4 justices would vote to hear this matter if they did not have the fifth vote.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 6:45 pm to Reeaholic
quote:
I don’t know law so forgive my ignorance but isn’t this case squarely on authority of district courts on issuing nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship isn’t being reviewed here? If that’s the case, what’s the big deal you’re talking about and why does it matter which case they picked?
Because this is a national issue and, as the case law stands today, it's clearly illegal with major impact. If there was ever an example of an EO worthy of a nationwide injunction, it's this one, so trying to mold an argument focused on why they're bad wrapped around THIS example is not optimal.
I'll put it another way. The injunction is almost assuredly valid in the districts where the case was brought. These injunctions can be brought in literally every district in the US. The USSC would be saying that the federal system would need one of each case filed in every district, with a result of injunction being the proper ruling implied. That sort of judicial inefficiency and just irrationality generally doesn't seem like something the court would support.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 6:46 pm to cajunandy
quote:
I don't think you would be saying that if you had read the Governments application to SCOTUS. Quoting form the Government application
"But at this stage, the government comes to this Court with a “modest” request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should “restrict the scope” of multiple preliminary injunctions that “purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,” limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power"
Read my post above for the preemptive response.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 6:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
Could they rule against the substance of the EO and still strike down the nationwide injunction aspect?
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:05 pm to lake chuck fan
Cannot depend on Barrett or Roberts-I’d say it’s 50-50.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Read my post above for the preemptive response
And read the last part of my post. There is at least five justices ready to limit universal injunctions. There is four justices who have expressed reservations regarding universal injunctions. You need 4 justices to agree to hear a case. The 4 justices who want to hear a case will not vote to hear a case just to end up on the losing side. Therefore they have a fifth justice maybe more.
BTW, after reading the lower court ruling, briefs and some of the Amicus curiae briefs you might not so sure of the unconstitutionally of E.O.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:14 pm to Jake88
quote:
Could they rule against the substance of the EO and still strike down the nationwide injunction aspect?
Theoretically, but I don't think the substance of the EO has been litigated properly up to them at this point.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:17 pm to cajunandy
quote:
BTW, after reading the lower court ruling, briefs and some of the Amicus curiae briefs you might not so sure of the unconstitutionally of E.O.
No I've read Wong Kim Ark so many times since January and discussed it so much on here I'm definitely sure of it.
The Supreme Court would have to ignore the ruling entirely to rule differently without overruling WKA. They can always overruled WKA, but that would create a boondoggle so I can't see Roberts joining in to make the court a weapon of chaos for partisanship like that. So you just need one of Gorsuch, Kavabaugh, or ACB. Kavanaugh and ACB believe in precedent and largely believed in Roberts' belief about the sanctity of the court and avoiding it being politicized.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:17 pm to Jake88
As I've been saying....you were lying claiming to be conservative.
Posted on 5/14/25 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The Supreme Court would have to ignore the ruling entirely to rule differently without overruling WKA
SCOTUS would not need to overturn WKA because WKA is easily distinguishable. The parents were permanent legal residents. The EO excluded children of illegal aliens.
quote:
They can always overruled WKA, but that would create a boondoggle so I can't see Roberts joining in to make the court a weapon of chaos for partisanship like that. So you just need one of Gorsuch, Kavabaugh, or ACB. Kavanaugh and ACB believe in precedent and largely believed in Roberts' belief about the sanctity of the court and avoiding it being politicized.
Two things, SCOTUS has issued ruling that have created chaos and did not care at all. Example the NLRB issued ruling without a quorum(if i recall like 500-1000 cases) and SCOTUS said do it again.
Second, this is the court that overruled ROE and Chevron. If they think WKA is wrong they will reverse regardless of the chaos that it may create.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News