Davin News Server

On Fri, 04 Jul 2025 09:08:06 -0400, NoBody wrote:

> 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.

Don't hold your breath there.  Alan is a 'crat-bot (like a crackpot but
with a lot more endurance) of somekind.

Dhu

> 
>>
>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 Court’s 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 court’s ruling last Friday, U.S. District Judge
> Randolph Moss issued an extraordinary rejection of the president’s
> 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 Haiti’s TPS designation on September 2, 2025 and the subsequent
> loss of their legal right to live and work in the United States,
> despite this Court’s finding that Secretary Noem’s partial vacatur of
> Haiti’s 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.

  -- 
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