From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Major win for Democracy!
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 09:20:46 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:46:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
>> Judges can no longer abuse their power:
>>
>> "President Donald Trump celebrated after the Supreme Court moved to
>> block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions, something that
>> had impacted his executive orders.
>>
>> The president held a news conference just over an hour after the
>> ruling was issued and said the Supreme Court had stopped a "colossal
>> abuse of power."
>>
>> "I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months, we've seen
>> a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the
>> rightful powers of the president to stop the American people from
>> getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers," Trump
>> said on Friday.
>>
>> Trump also accused lower court judges of trying to "dictate the law
>> for the entire nation" rather than ruling on the cases before them.
>>
>> On Friday, Supreme Court Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts
>> to issue injunctions only in limited instances, though the ruling
>> leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the
>> birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case."
>>
>> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-celebrates-supreme-court-limits-colossal-abuse-power-federal-judges
>>
>> Count down for Lying Lee and Bradley's whining commences.
>
>Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to
>get it right?
>
>The USSC only said federal district courts can't issue NATIONWIDE
>injunctions.
Which is the win since the district courts have been acting like
kings.
Perhaps you should reread the article because the importance was
clearly lost on you.
>
>And how is it a "win for democracy" that a court can grant an injunction
>in one part of the country that doesn't apply in other parts of the
>country...
>
Because it forces the judges to operate with only the powers they
actually have??
Dang dude...