Davin News Server

On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 14:22:30 -0400, -hh wrote:

> On 7/1/25 13:51, Alan wrote:
>> On 2025-07-01 04:20, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 12:14:17 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-06-28 06:21, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...operating under the same federal laws?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such
>>>>>> nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court's majority opinion was
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is clearly lost on Alan.
>>>>
>>>> It's not lost on me that you didn't object when they were ruled
>>>> during Obama's years.
>>>
>>> Quote me and include the message ID's where I cheered it.  I'm asking
>>> the same thing as Anonymous because if you're going to make claims
>>> like this, you should be able to support it.
>> 
>> Notice the little goalpost move...
> 
> Precisely.  Because a "zero" can't logically be proven, the burden for
> disprove Alan's "zero" is by NoBody showing instances where they've made
> an objection in the past (e.g. Obama administration).
> 
> It only takes one such example to disprove Alan, but citing a handful of
> examples would make for a stronger case by revealing a pattern of
> consistency in position, instead of an isolated anomaly.

You'd differentiate 'tween a stupid agenda and simply stupid, aye? 

In this case I'd suggest there's some KISA involved, so no KISS ;')

Dhu

> 
> 
> -hh

 -- 
Je suis Canadien:
  Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais,
  C'est une esp`ece de sauvage. 
  Ne obliviscaris: vix ea nostra voco!

 *A mari ad mari ad mari*

  Duncan Patton a Campbell