Davin News Server

Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2025 09:28:44 -0400, NoBody wrote:
> 
>> 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>
> 
> Alan is a creature that has allowed the RulZ(TM) to replace
> conscience.  If it's an AI we need to Kill it before it grows up.
> 
> Dhu
> 
>     --
> 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
> 

but i know the west end gang and the rock machine