The Latest: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions (Page 2/2) cliffw JUL 03, 05:32 PM quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I was thinking about that... I'm not sure it necessarily means that the Supreme Court will see more work, it just means that the lowest level of Federal judge cannot HALT the president from performing an action, while the lawsuit or case works its way through the process. Trump has by far had mote injunctions filed on him in the first term since all Presidents in the present century than all others combined. TDS. All by judge shopping liberal judges. I have never seen an injuction which lists the planntifs, who brings a suit before Trump, An important distinction should be mentioned here... in most cases (literally), the Democrats know that their lawsuits are frivolous and would be thrown out by the Supreme Court anyway. So... they find a very liberal judge that's willing to file an injunction just for the sake of it... to prevent Trump from being successful, even though they know eventually it'll get to SCOTUS and be rejected. Case in point (literally), this will likely result in fewer lawsuits by Democrats because there's absolutely no point in filing them in the first place since they know most of these cases will be tossed out anyway... and they can no longer perform injunctions... so it literally does nothing. I see more work for the appeals court... but overall, I expect fewer work for the Supreme Court from this stuff since there's going to be really no point for the Democrats to file lawsuits since there's no benefit to them, and will just cost them money.[/QUOTE] blackrams JUL 07, 09:20 PM Anyone else notice how the Dem Leadership is realing and doesn't seem to have a clue on what to do? Rams 82-T/A [At Work] JUL 08, 03:49 PM quote Originally posted by blackrams: Anyone else notice how the Dem Leadership is realing and doesn't seem to have a clue on what to do? Rams Nation-wide injunctions were their go-to... so this is a HUGE upset for the Democrats. All that said, it's now set precedence, and it will become an issue for the Republicans when Democrats get back into office as well. One of the things I've noticed is that Democrats have historically always been the ones who have done things, KNOWING that what they're doing is unconstitutional, but they do it because they know it'll get tied up in the courts. The Republicans have historically always been against using injunctions in all but the most extreme cases. Democrats will routinely do something... knowing full well that it'll get thrown out, but understand it'll take time to go through the courts and it'll be considered OBE by the time a judge makes a decision. We know this because they've actually stated this several times. With Trump in office, the courts were going to be a primary place for them to resist Trump's goals... knowing that in almost every case, the Supreme Court would rule in favor constitutionally. Remember, the Supreme Court's purpose is to find a way to support the President's authority, while ensuring it's constitutional. This is also why the same conservative Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was totally constitutional. Anyway, the Democrats overplayed their hand, and basically ruined the whole game for everyone... so to speak. It'll hurt Republicans too if in 4 years a Democrat wins the presidency... as long as the Democrats pick someone who's radical and lunatic. If they pick (and win) with someone who's more moderate, and not suffering from dementia... then I expect fewer lawsuits. Doug85GT JUL 08, 07:45 PM Here we go. A judge in Massachusetts just issued a TRO blocking part of the BBB which cuts off funding to Planned Parrenthood and any other abortion provider. https://www.washingtonexami...o-overrule-congress/ Did the SCOTUS ruling apply to TROs? I thought it did. I guess we will find out soon. 82-T/A [At Work] JUL 09, 05:02 PM quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Here we go. A judge in Massachusetts just issued a TRO blocking part of the BBB which cuts off funding to Planned Parrenthood and any other abortion provider. https://www.washingtonexami...o-overrule-congress/ Did the SCOTUS ruling apply to TROs? I thought it did. I guess we will find out soon. Oh, dude... it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I don't even understand what this MA judge thinks their doing. Not only do they no longer have the authority to perform an injunction at that level, but this is a bill authorized by Congress... which this judge has no authority over... it's totally asinine. If anything, it makes me happy that a judge would jeopardize her career because she's so emotional over wanting people to have the right to kill babies. She could face repercussions for doing this.