5 edits
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-supreme-court-just-gave-the-president-more-power.html
Trump inching closer to dictator. Today is a LOT different from yesterday. And Trump will not stop killing birthright citizenship, gays will be on his list also and the courts can do nothing now to stop him.
I thought it was the money provision in the 'big sinister zombie bill' preventing courts from enforcing injunctions by cutting off the money supply which would mean Trump would nearly complete the coup but SCOTUS beat THAT to the punch today.
Blatantly saying lower courts cannot do injunctions unless there are on going cases IN EVERY STATE, any state without active law suits right now say in birthright citizenship law suits anyone not IN such law suits will not be able to fight getting their citizenship taken away from because mama or papa was not born here, running right against the 14th amendment to the constitution. Trump thumbs his nose at the constitution. ALL of it.
You lose your citizenship you are STATELESS and cannot apply for aid, drivers license, SS, education, medical help because you lose Medicare or whatever you have.
It is one of the most inhumane way ANYONE can treat a citizen of the US, their whole lives uprooted and no recompense. Instead of the song Forever Young, you are now forever BANNED.
And you can bet your ass Trump would NEVER invoke that against two of his wives, they were not born here so should have THEIR citizenship revoked but it will be a matter of do as I SAY not as I DO.
Hell, TRUMP should lose his citizenship because HIS mama was born in SCOTLAND under that sick ass rule.
I see him invoking marshal law on June 17th the next big protest day, bring out TENS of thousand of National guards and marines to quell hundreds of protests against him, in effect ANNOUNCING his ascent to the throne, KING TRUMP now over ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, all made possible by the sinister zombie right wingers in SCOTUS.
He wins his coup without a drop of blood spilled.
@sonhouse saidThe Constitution had already given the President the power. SCOTUS simply put it out there for the deniers to see. Now you have seen it. You seem upset, ...are you aware that other countries will benefit FAR MORE than the USA from the bombing? And that District Judges cannot weigh in on Executive Orders? And that Birth Rights were given to children of slaves?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-supreme-court-just-gave-the-president-more-power.html
Trump inching closer to dictator. Today is a LOT different from yesterday. And Trump will not stop killing birthright citizenship, gays will be on his list also and the courts can do nothing now to stop him.
I thought it was the money provision in the 'big sinister zombie ...[text shortened]... by the sinister zombie right wingers in SCOTUS.
He wins his coup without a drop of blood spilled.
All simple, all common sense. Yet you write reams, about nothing. You could just re-write what I just wrote.
You sure do write a lot of air.
4 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidSEEM UPSET? you are so fking blind you can't see the REAL implications of this ruling. AND you did not read the dissent of the OTHER judges who are STUNNED and AGHAST at this POS ruling.
The Constitution had already given the President the power. SCOTUS simply put it out there for the deniers to see. Now you have seen it. You seem upset, ...are you aware that other countries will benefit FAR MORE than the USA from the bombing? And that District Judges cannot weigh in on Executive Orders? And that Birth Rights were given to children of slaves?
All ...[text shortened]... reams, about nothing. You could just re-write what I just wrote.
You sure do write a lot of air.
I was railing against the provisions in the ugly budget bill about the provision that would have cut off money to courts trying to enforce injunctions and contempt orders which maybe you remember me PISSED about that.
But SCOTUS totally went right around that making it moot if that provision passes or not.
SCOTUS ORDERED no lower courts can enforce verdicts protecting birthright citizenship against folks who happen NOT to be in some vast array of on going court cases already in the books, in other words, if you are NOT in a law suit RIGHT now, AND Trump pulls your citizenship you are for the rest of your life SCREWED, STATELESS.
Even YOU can figure out that means if there are not literally MILLIONS of lawsuits keeping Trump at bay he gets what he wants. No lawsuits, a poor person just getting by gets his or her life totally uprooted.
And YOU find nothing wrong with that.
But that is only the FIRST of MANY more abuses of power Trump WILL do.
Use the same logic against gays, against DEMOCRATS, against Blue states in many political matters like money from FEMA for crises in BLUE states, FK your application for aid from that earthquake in California or that hurricane in Maine, we only send FEMA money to PATRIOTIC MAGA states.
THAT is the kind of thing that will result from this TRAITOROUS ruling by SCOTUS.
And you no doubt totally agree with them. Attacks on women next, abortion banned TOTALLY in all 50 states so back to bent coat hangers and dead women in back ally's of America.
This is not the America I want to live in, but OF COURSE you are FINE with Trump becoming a king. LITERALLY.
Which is EXACTLY why I said the right wingers on SCOTUS are TRAITORS to the US allowing Trump to go FK the constitution, I now have the power to do what ever the HELL I want.
@sonhouse saidToo many issues, not something a lowly poster can get his arms around.
SEEM UPSET? you are so fking blind you can't see the REAL implications of this ruling. AND you did not read the dissent of the OTHER judges who are STUNNED and AGHAST at this POS ruling.
I was railing against the provisions in the ugly budget bill about the provision that would have cut off money to courts trying to enforce injunctions and contempt orders which maybe you ...[text shortened]... e US allowing Trump to go FK the constitution, I now have the power to do what ever the HELL I want.
Get your arms around this one issue. SCOTUS was asked if district court judges in the USA (there are 680 of them) can hear the facts of cases before them, and make rulings which, in effect, block nationwide policy, and issue sweeping injunctions.
Do you LOVE how short I presented this to you. A simple question...Should the SCOTUS have stopped their doing this? Please respond with brevity.
PS: Note that if judges could do this, people like your progressives who are pushing their lib issues, like having me pay your daughter's tuition, would overload the courts to use lawfare to get their results. But, I get ahead of myself,,,,,,Can you answer the question?? Please?
@AverageJoe1 saidThe answer is NO, SCOTUS should NOT castrate lower courts from doing their job.
Too many issues, not something a lowly poster can get his arms around.
Get your arms around this one issue. SCOTUS was asked if district court judges in the USA (there are 680 of them) can hear the facts of cases before them, and make rulings which, in effect, block nationwide policy, and issue sweeping injunctions.
Do you LOVE how short I presented this to you. ...[text shortened]... wfare to get their results. But, I get ahead of myself,,,,,,Can you answer the question?? Please?
Those lower courts look at LAWS and see if a plaintiff broke those laws.
This POS ruling from SCOTUS says any ruling against Trump trying to thwart constitutional president is off the table, Rulings against DEMOCRATS are fine, rulings against TRUMP or REPUBLICANS is DEAD.
@sonhouse saidRead what you just wrote..... "Castrate for doing their job." Their job was to hear and rule upon the case before them. They ruled beyond their case to affect and condemn the EOs of the President. Does Trump have to get permission from these judges to issue an EO? To implement his agenda? I am killing you here, give it up.
The answer is NO, SCOTUS should NOT castrate lower courts from doing their job.
Those lower courts look at LAWS and see if a plaintiff broke those laws.
This POS ruling from SCOTUS says any ruling against Trump trying to thwart constitutional president is off the table, Rulings against DEMOCRATS are fine, rulings against TRUMP or REPUBLICANS is DEAD.
@sonhouse said' THE LOWER COURTS LOOKS AT LAWS TO SEE THE....PLAINTIFF (in the case before that court)......TO SEE IF THE P L A I N T I F F (!!) BROKE THOSE LAWS!
Those lower courts look at LAWS and see if a plaintiff broke those laws.
The plaintiff, man. One Person, or one entity.
Whew, I have finally made it clear....using your ow no words. See,,,,I told you to give it up....that, you are beat.. Say I get it now Joe
1 edit
@Cliff-Mashburn saidWrong.
Funny how Obama and Biden never had podunk courts try to take away their power but suddenly we get a Republican back in office and now every turdy little Democrat Soros-backed judge wants to usurp the power of the presidency. Good on SCOTUS for setting things straight.
Federal district court ("podunk court" in your lexicon) judges have issued universal injunctions against plenty of Biden and Obama policies.
You can get yourself educated on the matter here, to start:
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5448821/universal-injunction-supreme-court-executive-order-birthright
"An injunction is an order by a court telling somebody to do something or not do something," explains Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. Usually injunctions protect the parties to the case. But a universal injunction "controls how the federal government acts toward anyone."
He says universal injunctions are "a recent innovation" and their use has seen "a meteoric rise over the last 10 years" in tandem with an increase in executive orders issued by the administrations of presidents Barack Obama, Trump and Joe Biden.
Some statistics from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_injunction...
[F]ederal courts issued 19 or 20 nationwide injunctions against the Obama administration.
Fourteen national injunctions occurred in the first three years of Biden's term.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidI should add that the Supreme Court decision is relevant only to federal courts. State-level courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions, and the ruling has nothing to do with them.
Funny how Obama and Biden never had podunk courts try to take away their power but suddenly we get a Republican back in office and now every turdy little Democrat Soros-backed judge wants to usurp the power of the presidency. Good on SCOTUS for setting things straight.
@AverageJoe1 saidRight, I am not a lawyer, The person CHARGED, whatever you want to call it.
' THE LOWER COURTS LOOKS AT LAWS TO SEE THE....PLAINTIFF (in the case before that court)......TO SEE IF THE P L A I N T I F F (!!) BROKE THOSE LAWS!
The plaintiff, man. One Person, or one entity.
Whew, I have finally made it clear....using your ow no words. See,,,,I told you to give it up....that, you are beat.. Say I get it now Joe
Plaintiff is the person bringing the charge I see after I gargled it.
You just want to muddy the waters of my INTENT.
@Cliff-Mashburn saidThis will go right over Maruader's head. And He Has a Lexis Nexis!!!
Funny how Obama and Biden never had podunk courts try to take away their power but suddenly we get a Republican back in office and now every turdy little Democrat Soros-backed judge wants to usurp the power of the presidency. Good on SCOTUS for setting things straight.