There were no exceptions in that bill brainless wonder. It was limiting what states could legislate. They could not limit late term or near term abortions.
Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
Which is why its better to just point at the dumb troll and laugh.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
The Constitution says judicial power extends to all cases in law and equity. If the courts have no power then why does it give them that power in the Constitution?Once more you're evidence of how badly our educational establishment has failed us and what an uneducated dumbass you are.
The Constitution doesn't go against the will of the people you brainless twit, it protects them from the Government and clearly defines the roles of the Government and separation of those roles.
MORON ALERT!!! This one is especially stupid.
Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Again, it talks about exceptions, dumbass.
Why does it even matter? Most abortions are done within 6-10 weeks.
But continue to double down on the lie that Democrats want "unfettered" abortion up to birth and even after birth.
I love to watch you flail.
MORON ALERT!!! This one is especially stupid.
At least irony isn't dead.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
The inference is your problem.But you inferred that he wasn't.
What does it do?
What does it do?
Where does it say they can invent law from the bench and tell the Executive what it can and cannot do?
Where under article III does it say they shall interfere with the Executive when they don't like their politics?
NO, it talks about how states cannot make them dumbass.
It matters because abortions should be RARE. That was the original argument for ROE. But now, Democrats fight tooth and nail and make it their political war cry against Republicans that no limitations are acceptable.
The Supreme Court said it is a States rights issue. The Democrats in congress tried to overrule that with that poorly thought our legislation attempt.
The only one lying and looking like a brainless uneducated dumbass here is you halfwit.
I love to watch you flail.
Projection. The only one flailing is you dipshit. Hell, you don't even have the balls to answer any questions.
Now run along little man. You're not serious about anything except removing any doubt what a worthless dumbass thread troll you are.
Yep, your posts are ironic, and moronic.
The inference is yours. Now run along little man. You're not serious about anything and just like to illustrate what a brainless whiny little thread troll you are.
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
That's an irony.
The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to simply ignore laws and the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn't give the President the power to simply ignore laws and the Constitution.
What laws did they invent? Please cite the court ruling that you think invented a law.
Since the courts told Biden he couldn't use a certain law to forgive student loans, it would appear the courts can tell the Executive what he can and can't do when they interpret the laws differently from the Executive. Or do you think the courts were wrong to tell Biden he couldn't do something?
Cite the ruling that says they don't like Trump's politics.
As of the other day, over 30 different judges appointed by 5 different Presidents have ruled against the Trump administration over 60 times. Most of those were Temporary Restraining Orders or Preliminary Injuctions.
Your posts? Indeed! They are also unserious, seldom address a topic and incredibly stupid.
APatheticlefty on the forum:
Who said it does? So why did Biden ignore our laws and Constitution when the Supreme Court ruled against him and you cheered it?
Who said that it does? How has Trump ignored our laws? What laws are these out of control activist jurists claiming were broken?
The jurists who think they can dictate to the Executive branch what money they have to spend and whether they can deport criminal aliens. DUH!
That was an actual case. Biden ignored that law and did it anyway. I don't remember a lot of shrill outcries and handwringing from you mental cases on the left. Why was that? You seem okay when a President breaks the laws.
No. Why fabricate dumb strawmen? I get it though, this happens when leftist halfwits realize they are losing the argument.
It's right in their decisions. You might want to read one before you erupt with your childish nonsense.
Here's one example of the many dumb claims jurists are making:
District Judge James Boasberg said he in part rejected the Trump administration’s request because there is “a strong public interest in preventing the mistaken deportation of people based on categories they have no right to challenge.”
“Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on another equally fundamental theory: before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all,”
What law makes that claim? They are not citizens and came here ILLEGALLY. Therefore, their only right is to be deported post haste. Just because the last administration ignored out immigration laws, doesn't make it okay.
Another dunce:
Ali’s line of questioning in a four-hour hearing Thursday suggested skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument that presidents have wide authority to override congressional decisions on spending when it comes to foreign policy.
I'm pretty certain that the executive has authority over how the funds should be spent. Congress didn't expressly state how the funds were to be dispersed. They just approved them.
If you had a brain, you would find this level of judicial activism alarming. Most of these judges are Obama or Biden appointees. Trying to pretend they aren't partisan hacks is weak.
The best argument for the federal courts’ statutory authority to issue (some of the) national injunctions recently granted is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires reviewing courts to “set aside” unlawful agency action. But some of the national injunctions have involved executive orders that are not reviewable under the APA. I know of no plausible statutory authority for federal courts to grant these injunctions.
The best argument against statutory authority to grant national injunctions is that neither the APA nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorize them. National injunctions are inimical to the traditional powers and constraints of equity, and thus under Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. are not within the grant of statutory authority in the Judiciary Act. Nor should the APA be understood as authorizing, much less requiring, national injunctions. When the APA was enacted, national injunctions were not being given by federal courts. The language used — “set aside” — was typical for reversal of judgments, which is consistent with Congress’s expectation that agencies would predominantly make policy through adjudication. And Congress would have needed to speak more clearly in order to depart from long-standing equitable and remedial principles (cf. Nken v. Holder, Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo).
We can have a system that gets to an answer very quickly, erring on the side of expansive remedies. Or we can have a system that emphasizes the individual case and the parties before the court. In this latter system we do get to a decision for everyone — but it takes time, and deliberation, and the decisions of different courts in different parts of the country. It is open for debate which kind of system is better. But the design of the federal judiciary and the judicial power exercised by the federal courts over more than two centuries strongly suggest the latter is the kind of system we have. And in this kind of system, the national injunction is an aberration.
Recent challenges to federal immigration policies are examples of cases in which class certification would have been very difficult, and yet the plaintiff needed a nationwide injunction to obtain complete relief. The state of Texas challenged the Obama administration’s policy of granting deferred action to certain undocumented immigrants, claiming injury because it would be forced to provide recipients of deferred action with state-subsidized driver’s licenses. The Obama administration argued that any injunction of its deferred action initiative should be limited to the state of Texas alone. But the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s nationwide injunction on the ground that anything less would fail to alleviate Texas’ injury, because recipients of deferred action in other states could move to Texas any time and apply for driver’s licenses, causing Texas the same injury. Likewise, when Hawaii challenged President Trump’s travel ban, it argued that restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals anywhere in the United States would impede tourism and harm recruitment of faculty and students to its state university, and so it claimed a nationwide injunction essential to provide it with complete relief. Neither of these states could have easily brought their cases as class actions.
Nonetheless, the costs of nationwide injunctions are real, which is why district courts should carefully weigh the costs against benefits before issuing them.
One for all: Are nationwide injunctions legal?
Critics argue that nationwide injunctions encourage forum-shopping, inhibit the proper development of law, and politicize the judiciary.
judicature.duke.edu
Into the Night
Verified User
Trump won by 57%, anchovies.
Into the Night
Verified User
He isn't, Sybil.