- 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
0
Posted on 5/16/25 at 6:47 am to heymama
Ignoring for the moment whether a district court judge is "co-equal" to the President of the United States, if a judge is presiding over a case involving a legitimate nationwide plaintiff (or defendant) class, then arguably the judge could grant such injunctive relief.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:33 am to heymama
quote:
Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right clearly defined in the 14th amendment of the constitution and has been interpreted by Supreme Court precedent for more than 100 years.
This is only true if you refuse to be honest while getting all your talking points from MSDNC…….
This post was edited on 5/16/25 at 7:34 am
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:35 am to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
This is only true if you refuse to be honest while getting all your talking points from MSDNC…….
Or if you can read
It's been the accepted reading for almost 130 years
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:36 am to Froman
quote:
Trump is a convicted felon. I think for all the seconds he would do something illegal to try and continue the corruption he has spent the first few months of his term instilling. His actions so far prove more than anything how we have given the executive branch too much authority. Thank god these hero judges are stepping in to try to at least stop the bleeding.
Holy wall of hurt feelings
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:43 am to heymama
quote:
So what happens when a libtard is in charge again and we’ve done away with national injunctions…and that libtard attempts to unconstitutionally take your guns?
Please give us an example of a 2A case that couldn’t be certified as a class action?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's been the accepted reading for almost 130 years
Yes it is but maybe it’s you that can not read because tell us how many nationwide injunctions occurred prior to 2016. Are you saying that what has occurred is natural and not an abuse of the system/authority. And why would it rapidly escalated in a 5 year period. Being disingenuous is not a good look for a so called lawyer even if you are a small town trailer park divorce lawyer.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:48 am to cubsfan5150
quote:You sound weary of losing. I'm certainly not tired of winning.
cubsfan5150
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:48 am to heymama
quote:
So what happens when a libtard is in charge again and we’ve done away with national injunctions…and that libtard attempts to unconstitutionally take your guns?
Maybe you failed to understand my point.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:50 am to heymama
quote:I'll boil this one down for simplicity...
Supreme Court Weighs Nationwide Injunctions: Your Rights May Be At Risk
1. We are a republic that uses elected officials to represent the will of the people? Yes
2. Is the head of the executive branch elected? Yes
3. Are any of these 650+ judges elected? No
4. With our form of government who is best to make such decisions? The elected official.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:53 am to heymama
How long did this country survive without nationwide injunctions by a single judge? Answer: into the 1960s that’s when the first one happened.
A single judge should not have impact on national policy.
A single judge should not have impact on national policy.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:55 am to ABearsFanNMS
quote:
Yes it is but maybe it’s you that can not read because tell us how many nationwide injunctions occurred prior to 2016.
Uh..You specifically quoted this language to which I replied:
quote:
Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right clearly defined in the 14th amendment of the constitution and has been interpreted by Supreme Court precedent for more than 100 years.
Not pictured: words about injunctions.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:59 am to heymama
I predict that these black robed cowards will pick out some insignificant technical point in this case to rule on and just kick the can down the road.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:03 am to heymama
It's really not complicated. I don't think there's a single person alive who honestly believes that you can run a nation where nothing can happen unless 100% of federal judges are okay with it.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:10 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
Fake news
No, that really happened, but I get that the only way this board can stay in operation is by ignoring facts and denying the truth.
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:24 am to Froman
quote:
No, that really happened, but I get that the only way this board can stay in operation is by ignoring facts and denying the truth.
Are you aware of the concept of dual narratives? And that it is an intentional tactic of dishonest neomarxists in the left wing media and democrat party?
You should try for honesty. Full truth and nothing but.
It’s like stepping out of a terrible smog and breathing fresh air again.
This post was edited on 5/16/25 at 8:25 am
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Or if you can read It's been the accepted reading for almost 130 years
Can you explain English common law vs reality today where you do not have birthright citizenship in England
Posted on 5/16/25 at 8:37 am to dafif
quote:
Can you explain English common law vs reality today where you do not have birthright citizenship in England
You mean like how we now have illegal immigrants today when we did not have it at the time of the ruling?
The ruling itself discusses this and the power of Congress. FYI
Posted on 5/16/25 at 9:03 am to Froman
quote:
I think for all the seconds he would do something illegal to try and continue the corruption he has spent the first few months of his term instilling.
What corruption is he instilling?
Posted on 5/16/25 at 7:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You mean like how we now have illegal immigrants today when we did not have it at the time of the ruling?
I meant how England does not allow this as part of their law. If we are following English law it seems important from a legal distinction
As you know courts make the wrong interpretation all the time . And how does a newborn "become subject to the jurisdiction " especially when parents are not here legally. It's baffling
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News