Birthright Citizenship....

Damocles said:
What he's going to be happy about is it will bring it up to the SCOTUS to make a ruling, and keeping the district courts rulings where they belong.

It's like you read only a portion of what someone says, pretend the past never happened, and then start asking a question that has already been answered. Actually, it's not "like" that, it's exactly that.
Click to expand...
Then why did the SCOTUS refuse to address it when they had it right before them? Even Kavanaugh said that was a mistake. It could take hears before it hit the Court a second time

Second part is confusing, I read your examples of splits, but don’t see it particularly relevant
 
archives said:
Then why did the SCOTUS refuse to address it when they had it right before them? Even Kavanaugh said that was a mistake. It could take hears before it hit the Court a second time

Second part is confusing, I read your examples of splits, but don’t see it particularly relevant
Click to expand...
Because if they address it they don't also get the lower courts to understand that their rulings only affect their districts. Nationwide injunctions from district courts is not a thing anymore.

The second part is only "confusing" because you find introspection uncomfortable. There was more than one post in this thread on this subject, you took one, pretended none of the rest existed, then asked stupid questions that have already been answered, like the one above.
 
Damocles said:
Because if they address it they don't also get the lower courts to understand that their rulings only affect their districts. Nationwide injunctions from district courts is not a thing anymore.

The second part is only "confusing" because you find introspection uncomfortable. There was more than one post in this thread on this subject, you took one, pretended none of the rest existed, then asked stupid questions that have already been answered, like the one above.
Click to expand...
Indeed, poor Anchovies.
 
Damocles said:
Because if they address it they don't also get the lower courts to understand that their rulings only affect their districts. Nationwide injunctions from district courts is not a thing anymore.

The second part is only "confusing" because you find introspection uncomfortable. There was more than one post in this thread on this subject, you took one, pretended none of the rest existed, then asked stupid questions that have already been answered, like the one above.
Click to expand...
My wife was a federal Court reporter for over 30 years in the Northern District of Texas. The judge she worked for is still on Senior status (think semi retired) any way even he agrees with what the SCOTUS ruled. He said he would personally never try to limit the President by injunction. The judges that put injunction on the President were liberal activists that damaged our separation of powers.
 
Earl said:
Pay attention, Nordy:

A president's authority is protected by the Constitution and has always been defended by the Justice Department and the Supreme Court, when challenged. You know, like Executive Immunity? Trump won that one, too.

What part of that says that the J.D is an enforcement arm of the president’s agenda?

His “authority “ is protected, not enforced.

Poor Nordy.
Click to expand...
Trump picked heads of departments who were ridiculously wedded to him. His conflict with Comey was because Trump insisted he swear loyalty to Trump, not the Constitution. Trump picks sycophants. Trump enforces his loyalty demands. This is what Barr did for him, and it was insufficient for the thief in chief. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/06/cnn-analyst-discusses-bill-barrs-impact/
 
Damocles said:
Because if they address it they don't also get the lower courts to understand that their rulings only affect their districts. Nationwide injunctions from district courts is not a thing anymore.

The second part is only "confusing" because you find introspection uncomfortable. There was more than one post in this thread on this subject, you took one, pretended none of the rest existed, then asked stupid questions that have already been answered, like the one above.
Click to expand...
Not buying that one, the case was bought before them for birthright citizenship, the injunction part as the vehicle, the Court punted, and if you asked why, I’d say that they didn’t want another controversial issue confronting Trump as his term begins. If they make a decision right after the next midterm you will know I was right

Each prior decision is different, there isn’t a strong consensus that relates to birthright citizenship, and none of them fall directly on the question of nationwide injunction
 
Nordberg said:
Trump picked heads of departments who were ridiculously wedded to him. His conflict with Comey was because Trump insisted he swear loyalty to Trump, not the Constitution. Trump picks sycophants. Trump enforces his loyalty demands. This is what Barr did for him, and it was insufficient for the thief in chief. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/06/cnn-analyst-discusses-bill-barrs-impact/
Click to expand...

"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.


What was that about "loyalty" to the president?
 
RB 60 said:
"I’m still enjoying what I’m doing, there’s still work to be done. I’m still the President’s wing-man, so I’m there with my boy. So we’ll see," Holder said in an interview on the Tom Joyner radio show.


What was that about "loyalty" to the president?
Click to expand...
There's loyalty to one's leader, but there's also an oath to the Constitution. Which should take precedence over the other?
 
Earl said:
No, pendejo/a, I just can't hear Pobre...that irrelevancy thingy
Click to expand...
Oh yes, you are irrelevant to a discussion based on facts and logic held by adults, Earl. Realizing this, you mentally shut down and cover your ears like a good little Maga monkey while babbling on ... pretty much your entire presence on this site.
 
Damocles said:
I have never "tried to portray myself" as a "centrist", nor do I believe in your sky daddy, let alone a "cheeto" version of it. I could not care even one miniscule bit less how you might "feel" about anything at all, let alone about me.
Click to expand...
Only the joker you see in the mirror and the resident maga/alt right trolls by into your bluff and bluster, Damo. Others who have been on this site for some time know your deal. FYI: Cheeto Jeezus is a mocking of our orange faced POTUS, as his die hard base and various politicos and pundits follow, defend and agree with all he says and does with the fervor of religious fanatics. So no one really gives a flying f*** if you're religious or not (I'm an agnostic, by the way). And if you didn't really care about my opinion, you wouldn't bother responding or you would have had me on "ignore" long time ago.

So, now that's out the way, how about responding to what was put forth in the previous post?

Taichiliberal

Post in thread 'Birthright Citizenship....'

Damocles said:
What he's going to be happy about is it will bring it up to the SCOTUS to make a ruling, and keeping the district courts rulings where they belong.

It's like you read only a portion of what someone says, pretend the past never happened, and then start asking a question that has already been answered. Actually, it's not "like" that, it's exactly that.
Click to expand...
So YOU are happy with the SCOTUS ruling that your feckless Cheeto Jeezus can commit a crime so long as it entails his executive duties. You're okay with his EO that violates due process and then IGNORES a direct ruling by the same...
  • Haha

Or are you going to follow the example of the MAGA moron's performances at various congressional hearings? We'll wait.
 
FastLane said:
My wife was a federal Court reporter for over 30 years in the Northern District of Texas. The judge she worked for is still on Senior status (think semi retired) any way even he agrees with what the SCOTUS ruled. He said he would personally never try to limit the President by injunction. The judges that put injunction on the President were liberal activists that damaged our separation of powers.
Click to expand...
Even if I believed your little tale (which I don't), here's a little education on the subject for you and the rest of your hypocritical Maga brethren:

Texas a hot spot for universal injunctions from conservative judges​

www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-a-hot-spot-for-universal-injunctions-from-conservative-judges/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top