Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
6/28/2025 1:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
And Republicans try to get their cases heard in Texas because the judges >there are the most friendly to them.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
. . .
On 6/28/2025 1:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement ofAnd Republicans try to get their cases heard in Texas because the judges >there are the most friendly to them.
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned by >SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach >more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here, >how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then the >abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned by SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here, how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then the abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>> Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned >> by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach >> more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then >> the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>>> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend >>>> case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>>> Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents >>>> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >>>> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned >>> by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >>> Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then >>> the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the >lawsuit is filed.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>>>> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to >>>>> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend >>>>> case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>>>> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington >>>>> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>>>> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>>>> Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents >>>>> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly >>>>> there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking >>>>> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >>>>> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >>>> nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >>>> Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the
lawsuit is filed.
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>>> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to >>>> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend >>>> case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>>> Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents >>>> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >>>> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >>> Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then >>> the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the lawsuit is filed.
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach >> more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here, >> how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born >...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>>>> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to >>>>> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend >>>>> case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>>>> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington >>>>> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases. >>>>> Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents >>>>> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly >>>>> there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking >>>>> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >>>>> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >>>> nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >>>> Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then >>>> the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the >>lawsuit is filed.
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the >parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned by >SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach >more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since >Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here, >how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then the >abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I >>>>>> don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to >>>>>> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking >>>>>> equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend >>>>>> case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>>>>> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington >>>>>> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>>>>> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents >>>>>> too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly >>>>>> there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking >>>>>> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial >>>>>> courts, Trump will win on the merits.
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >>>>> nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the >>> lawsuit is filed.
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the
parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.
Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of >>>>>>> his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme >>>>>>> Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to >>>>>>> file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking >>>>>>> equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>>>>>> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington >>>>>>> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>>>>>> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do >>>>>>> something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly >>>>>>> there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking >>>>>>> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the >>>> lawsuit is filed.
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his >>>>>> nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born >>>>> ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling. >>>>
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the
parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.
Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
Libs insist it's none of your business...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:14:39 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking >>>>>>>> equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the >>>>>>>> government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington >>>>>>>> remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>>>>>>> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage. >>>>>>>>
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly >>>>>>>> there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking >>>>>>>> heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the >>>>> lawsuit is filed.
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born >>>>>> ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling. >>>>>
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the >>>> parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.
Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
Libs insist it's none of your business...
Well now you're talking in circles.
Make up your mind already.
On 7/12/2025 9:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:14:39 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking >>>>>>>>> equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive >>>>>>>>> authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage. >>>>>>>>>
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born >>>>>>> ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling. >>>>>>
lawsuit is filed.
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the >>>>> parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which >>>>> would put an end to birth tourism.
Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
Libs insist it's none of your business...
Well now you're talking in circles.
Make up your mind already.
What circle?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 12:16:55 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 7/12/2025 9:48 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:14:39 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
case after case after case.
However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
Congress would have to fix that.
By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage. >>>>>>>>>>
I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
there is court jurisdiction for that.
The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
courts, Trump will win on the merits.
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the
So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class? >>>>>>>>>
Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born >>>>>>>> ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling. >>>>>>>
lawsuit is filed.
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the >>>>>> parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which >>>>>> would put an end to birth tourism.
Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
Libs insist it's none of your business...
Well now you're talking in circles.
Make up your mind already.
What circle?
Your seeming saying that unborn babies are covered by the ruling since
a plaintiff must have standing at the moment the lawsuit is filed yet
you're also saying the government should stay out of governing babies
in the womb.
Which is it? You can't have both.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:57:11 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,091 |