Davin News Server

On Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:49:15 -0400, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>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.

<crickets.wav>