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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
On 2025-06-27 21:35, Anonymous 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.
So, during the Obama administration, you seemed to feel differently:
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.
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.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump
did.
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.
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...
Time will tell.
-hh
Judges can no longer abuse their power:
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...
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump
did.
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.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump
did.
Silence
Clue: It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill.
Moron.
Get shot, Governor Shill.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such nationwide
injunctions.
Clue:Â It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill.
-hh wrote:
On 6/28/25 00:35, Anonymous 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.
So what? Are you making an "absence of evidence" type of argument, or
can you cite where Congress specifically restricted the authority of
said lower Federal courts to only apply within their district?
Then why are lower federal courts, which only exist at the whim of
Congress,
divided up into districts?
Then why are lower federal courts, which only exist at the whim of
Congress,
divided up into districts?
Because people live in different parts of the country.
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.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump
did.
Silence
How about because he respected the rulings of FEDERAL courts.
On 2025-07-02 18:49, Anonymous wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such nationwide >>>> injunctions.
Clue: It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill.
And where in the statutes does it say that the cases they rule on ONLY
apply within those districts?
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.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump >>>>> did.
Silence
How about because he respected the rulings of FEDERAL courts.
What rulings of FEDERAL courts has Trump ignored? Honestly given that
the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal Courts can't make nationwide injunctions yet continue to do so, perhaps it's time that he did.
On 2025-07-03 06:40, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:54:59 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-02 18:49, Anonymous wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:And where in the statutes does it say that the cases they rule on ONLY
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such nationwide >>>>>> injunctions.
Clue: It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill. >>>
apply within those districts?
See the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court for details.
I'm responding to the claim by Anonymous that CONGRESS is responsible.
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>
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.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump >>>>>> did.
Silence
How about because he respected the rulings of FEDERAL courts.
What rulings of FEDERAL courts has Trump ignored? Honestly given that
the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal Courts can't make nationwide
injunctions yet continue to do so, perhaps it's time that he did.
What courts have "continue[d] to do so" after the USSC ruling?
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>
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've lost completely on this point. I think it's time for you to
admit and move along.
Also note that the Obama didn't challenge nationwide orders as Trump >>>>>>> did.
Silence
How about because he respected the rulings of FEDERAL courts.
What rulings of FEDERAL courts has Trump ignored? Honestly given that
the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal Courts can't make nationwide
injunctions yet continue to do so, perhaps it's time that he did.
What courts have "continue[d] to do so" after the USSC ruling?
"If the Supreme CourtÂ’s near-ban on nationwide injunctions was the earth-shattering victory President Donald Trump claimed, no one seems
to have told his courtroom opponents.
While the absence of that tool is clearly a sea change for the
judiciary, early results indicate that judges see other paths to
impose sweeping restrictions on government actions they deem unlawful.
And those options remain viable in many major pending lawsuits against
the administration.
Since the high courtÂ’s ruling last Friday, U.S. District Judge
Randolph Moss issued an extraordinary rejection of the presidentÂ’s
effort to ban asylum for most southern border-crossers, a ruling with nationwide effect."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judges-still-broadly-blocking-trump-202312490.html
"A federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from
ending deportation protections for Haitians ahead of the date set
under the Biden administration, the latest blow to efforts from
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end the legal status.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan ruled Noem could not issue a
“partial vacatur” of a decision by her predecessor that gave Haitians Temporary Protected Status (TPS) until February of next year.
In February, Noem signed an order seeking to advance that date, moving
to end protections for Haitians this August.
“Plaintiffs’ injuries far outweigh any harm to the Government from a postponement. Without a postponement, plaintiffs face the termination
of HaitiÂ’s TPS designation on September 2, 2025 and the subsequent
loss of their legal right to live and work in the United States,
despite this Court’s finding that Secretary Noem’s partial vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation was unlawful,” Cogan wrote."
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5381448-federal-judge-blocks-haiti-tps-end/
Once again, you appear to think I don't come prepared for class.
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>
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've lost completely on this point. I think it's time for you to
admit and move along.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 07:55:45 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-03 06:40, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:54:59 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-02 18:49, Anonymous wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:And where in the statutes does it say that the cases they rule on ONLY >>>> apply within those districts?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such nationwide >>>>>>> injunctions.
Clue: It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill. >>>>
See the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court for details.
I'm responding to the claim by Anonymous that CONGRESS is responsible.
Actually he said that Congress did not authorize the lower courts to
issue nationwide injunctions. He is correct and the Supreme Court has
ruled that this authority does not exist. Thus, any judge that rules
this way is acting in a lawless fashion.
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>
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.
You've lost completely on this point. I think it's time for you to
admit and move along.
Irony.
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
"If the Supreme Court’s near-ban on nationwide injunctions was the earth-shattering victory President Donald Trump claimed, no one seems
to have told his courtroom opponents.
While the absence of that tool is clearly a sea change for the
judiciary, early results indicate that judges see other paths to
impose sweeping restrictions on government actions they deem unlawful.
And those options remain viable in many major pending lawsuits against
the administration.
Since the high court’s ruling last Friday, U.S. District Judge
Randolph Moss issued an extraordinary rejection of the president’s
effort to ban asylum for most southern border-crossers, a ruling with nationwide effect."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/judges-still-broadly-blocking- trump-202312490.html
"A federal judge in New York blocked the Trump administration from
ending deportation protections for Haitians ahead of the date set
under the Biden administration, the latest blow to efforts from
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to end the legal status.
U.S. District Court Judge Brian Cogan ruled Noem could not issue a
“partial vacatur” of a decision by her predecessor that gave Haitians Temporary Protected Status (TPS) until February of next year.
In February, Noem signed an order seeking to advance that date, moving
to end protections for Haitians this August.
“Plaintiffs’ injuries far outweigh any harm to the Government from a postponement. Without a postponement, plaintiffs face the termination
of Haiti’s TPS designation on September 2, 2025 and the subsequent
loss of their legal right to live and work in the United States,
despite this Court’s finding that Secretary Noem’s partial vacatur of Haiti’s TPS designation was unlawful,” Cogan wrote."
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5381448-federal-judge- blocks-haiti-tps-end/
Once again, you appear to think I don't come prepared for class.
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 07:55:45 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-03 06:40, NoBody wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 21:54:59 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-07-02 18:49, Anonymous wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:And where in the statutes does it say that the cases they rule on ONLY >>>> apply within those districts?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:35:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Congress never authorized lower federal courts to issue such nationwide >>>>>>> injunctions.
Clue:Â It's a *federal* court.
Clue: Lower federal courts are divided up into DISTRICTS, Governor Shill. >>>>
See the most recent ruling from the Supreme Court for details.
I'm responding to the claim by Anonymous that CONGRESS is responsible.
Actually he said that Congress did not authorize the lower courts to
issue nationwide injunctions. He is correct and the Supreme Court has
ruled that this authority does not exist. Thus, any judge that rules
this way is acting in a lawless fashion.
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:This is clearly lost on Alan.
On 2025-06-27 10:20, NoBody wrote:
Judges can no longer abuse their power:Wow. You read poorly. Or perhaps it's just that you trusted Fox News to get it
"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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
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. >>>>>>>>>>>
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.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:38:09 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,067 |
| Messages: | 6,417,317 |
| Posted today: | 1 |