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: Fri, 04 Jul 2025 09:08:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 07:55:00 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2025-07-03 06:39, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 09:29:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-07-02 09:18, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 10:51:34 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> 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...
>>>>
>>>> Not a goalpost move at all. You can't prove a negative. Your failure
>>>> to show y position during the Obama years is so noted.
>>>
>>> You moved it from me saying you didn't object to insisting I show you
>>> "cheered" it.
>>>
>>
>> Once again you can't prove a negative. If you would like to claim my
>> position on something, you're welcome to cite it.
>
>Why don't you show where you ever ONCE objected.
Once again you're asking me to prove a negative. Just because I
haven't posted on something doesn't mean I approve of it.
You've lost completely on this point. I think it's time for you to
admit and move along.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump
>>>>>> did.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Silence
>>>
>>> How about because he respected the rulings of FEDERAL courts.
>>
>> What rulings of FEDERAL courts has Trump ignored? Honestly given that
>> the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal Courts can't make nationwide
>> injunctions yet continue to do so, perhaps it's time that he did.
>
>What courts have "continue[d] to do so" after the USSC ruling?
"If the Supreme Courts near-ban on nationwide injunctions was the
earth-shattering victory President Donald Trump claimed, no one seems
to have told his courtroom opponents.
While the absence of that tool is clearly a sea change for the
judiciary, early results indicate that judges see other paths to
impose sweeping restrictions on government actions they deem unlawful.
And those options remain viable in many major pending lawsuits against
the administration.
Since the high courts ruling last Friday, U.S. District Judge
Randolph Moss issued an extraordinary rejection of the presidents
effort to ban asylum for most southern border-crossers, a ruling with
nationwide effect."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judges-still-broadly-blocking-trump-202312490.html
"A federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from
ending deportation protections for Haitians ahead of the date set
under the Biden administration, the latest blow to efforts from
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end the legal status.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan ruled Noem could not issue a
partial vacatur of a decision by her predecessor that gave Haitians
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) until February of next year.
In February, Noem signed an order seeking to advance that date, moving
to end protections for Haitians this August.
Plaintiffs injuries far outweigh any harm to the Government from a
postponement. Without a postponement, plaintiffs face the termination
of Haitis TPS designation on September 2, 2025 and the subsequent
loss of their legal right to live and work in the United States,
despite this Courts finding that Secretary Noems partial vacatur of
Haitis TPS designation was unlawful, Cogan wrote."
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5381448-federal-judge-blocks-haiti-tps-end/
Once again, you appear to think I don't come prepared for class.