re: Supreme Court Set To End Era Of Nationwide Judicial Injunctions

Why does anyone think that one branch of government is going to limit their own power? We are asking a court to limit the power of the judiciary. Has the legislative or executive branch ever limited themselves or were forced to by the other branches?

So prediction is this case will have a ruling that is very narrow in scope if the Executive side wins, but does not result in broad changes. At which point another branch will have to step up and eliminate these courts (I don’t think that is going to happen either).

I hope I am wrong because this level of checks and balances seems misaligned with the intent of the constitutional convention

When would this ruling come out?

quote:

---

They were no

---

Call them whatever you want, but they were in the US legally, unlike those subject to the EO.

quote:

---

As I said, the Supreme Court would have to ignore the ruling entirely

---

Read the Amicus Curiae brief from Members of Congress to see why that is wrong.

quote:

---

Call them whatever you want, but they were in the US legally,

---

How can Congress override a constitutional amendment?

The status-based argument is nothing more than arguing that Congress can create a status that removes a person from constitutional protection and I don't see how that can be

This is all also ignoring the entire discussion about subject to the jurisdiction that the court went into excruciating detail to describe

In what way does legal status change the analysis given by the court as to what those words mean? Their definition is exclusive to effectively 3 groups, neither of which have anything to do with legal status in terms of immigration or presence.

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 think they’ll leave that specific injunction alone, but establish a framework restricting nationwide injunctions in the process.

SlowFag: “the Supreme Court will rule against Trump”

Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump…

SlowFag: “I said all along theyd rule in Trump’s favor”

We don’t have time to do individual bills. That will drawl out for years/ this is why we need the one big bill. Cram everything into it

And yes it will pass because if it doesn’t, another Democrat or RINO will never get elected again.

quote:

---

We don’t have time to do individual bills. That will drawl out for years/ this is why we need the one big bill. Cram everything into it

---

And it won’t pass.

quote:

---

And yes it will pass because if it doesn’t, another Democrat or RINO will never get elected again.

---

This is what overplaying your hand looks like. There is plenty of bad policy in that bill that will prevent the good parts from passing.

Primary whoever you want, but there isn’t an avenue to 60 Senate seats in 2026. The GOP can gain a seat or two, but in the House it will be a challenge to keep the majority at all, much less significantly increase it. Without Trump on the ballot, MAGA congressional candidates do not perform well.

Alex, I will take ‘things that are not going to happen’ for $1000

Trump continues to be a disruptor w/o the support of Republicans in the House and Senate. Not sure why they are acting this way. It’s clear they see Trump as a temporary speed dump.