Davin News Server

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:30:01 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2025-07-04 06:08, 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 really haven't studied logic, have you?
>
>I'm asking you to DISPROVE a negative.
>

Not posting something does not imply approval nor disapproval  of a
policy.  You're still asking the same thing in a slightly different
way.

>> 
>> You've lost completely on this point.  I think it's time for you to
>> admit and move along.
>
>Irony.

I see you are unable to understand basic logic.