Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 1)

[benji]

A guy some of you are fans of says we're already in civil war:

[benji]

At this point, what even is their to be said, it's evil pure and simple, I just can't see how you fix this anymore. I will never forgive The Supreme Court for this, it's an organisation that needs to be dissolved, die and it's judges tried for the blood they have and are going to cause. The US Government is less then a joke, it's just blatant evil, it's not just rotten at the core, it is the rot. I just, fuck.

I JUST, FUCK

[Boredfrom]

Yeah, I understand that it doesn’t end birthright citizenship, but the misinformation about it is kind of massive. Even articles here have repeated that (not that they are good reporting foreign news to begin with  ).

[Tektonic]

see a big Benji USA court related post

[Cauliflower Of Love]

see a big Benji USA court related post

Is there one with content and not quotes? 

I've been MIA I was writing a bunch of dissents, completely unrelated.

[benji]

So let's say it's October 2026. Trump issues an executive order that anyone registered as a Democrat is ineligible to vote (or maybe something more subtle or narrowly targeted but with the same effect of rigging the election).

Lower courts are not allowed to stop the blatantly unconstitutional ruling, and the Supreme Court drags their feet to not hear an appeal until after the election and the damage is already done...

Let's go further. Say the Supreme Court does eventually hear the case in 2027 and decide that Trump's order was not legal. There is no mechanism to stop Trump from doing the exact same thing with a minor tweak in October 2028 and rigging the next election as well, as it takes months to work up to the Supreme Court...


This is literally the end of democracy in the USA

It's hilarious how fucking stupid these guys are. Why would anyone follow that order?  

Especially because he thinks there will ever be a Democrat administration again. We now live in a dictatorship, and will never see a Democrat president again.

And then there's not really a mechanism to put everything back the way it should be anyway. I mean that's the entire point of injunctions in the first place, to stop questionable points of no return from being crossed.

No, it isn't. Injunctions are temporary because the case has merits to be heard in court.

For Boredfrom:

It's amazing how you all recognize the dangers this poses to a federal democratic republic, yet I've seen countless posts praising Mexican President Sheinbaum—who is doing exactly the same thing (limit the powers of the judiciary and his judges)

What strikes me is how a so-called "radical right" leader like Trump is using the same strategies as a "leftist" and "scientific" president like Sheinbaum. Here's a hint: authoritarian and fascist governments don't care about left or right—they care about control.

I don't want to see another post celebrating Sheinbaum.

This ruling is terrible. I know countless friends and family members who are only American thanks to birthright citizenship. I just hope this doesn't harm them in the long run.

So if President Shapiro wants to revoke all the gun rights for people who watch Fox News (because Fox News was labeled a terrorist organization), then the Supreme Court would probably take the case on an emergency basis and issue a nationwide injunction or just flat out rule against it.

You think that if the President actually did something blatantly illegal and beyond their powers violating the rights of millions they would take up the case quickly versus an executive order that doesn't apply to anyone born yet?  

its actually the opposite. They neutered the power of lower courts, concentrating the power of the judiciary in the supreme court.

they (the six conservative justices) now have the sole power to decide on which executive actions are allowed or not.

They are neutering themselves in that they are supplicating themselves entirely to the executive branch. On paper this ruling heaps more work on their desk as they now have to deal with individuals suing up the ladder for the sake of their own restitution.

No, they don't, this isn't how the courts work at all.

[benji]

plagiarize is actually correcting people about the ruling and trying to walk them partly off the ledge in that thread and everyone's ignoring it. Then somebody else comes in and makes another "what if Trump orders all Black people to not wash their meat, now nobody can challenge that? This is literally the end" post.

[benji]

I fucking hate the democrats more and more. Liberal voters (you know, regular people) have been telling our very own dems that we voted into office, to run over Republicans. We have been warning about the seizure of power that is going to happen. We get scolded and told that we need to maintain "decorum" and that the left needs to work with the right.

Well, how did that work out now.

We are in a dictatorship now.

What's the fucking point of even living now

We are no longer heading towards authoritarian rule, we are actively in it.

Fuck dude. I'm so tired of people saying "we got to vote".

We are past that time. We already failed. We have to go through this now.

To be clear I am not calling for this, but from a historical observation standpoint I think there's now virtually no way out of this situation anymore that doesn't include massive bloodshed. The only question is how much blood on each side.

They can be removed. If there's a will, that is.

Voting doesn't matter for shit if the candidates were voting in do nothing.

The right side of history can never stop winning.

The fuck were the Founding Fathers thinking when they deemed it acceptable to have a President choose the Supreme Court nominees when they would be the ones policing said President?

"What the fuck were they thinking having Congress choose them when they would be the ones policing said Congress?" - BWoog in another timeline.

Can someone please explain to me why the Supreme Court seats are for life and no checks and balances for when they clearly corrupt, evil and unconstitutional ruling? What exactly was the logic was there in that when it seems to be nothing be allow corrupt go unchallenged?

Dude from the UK asks why court seats are for life in another country.

[benji]

see a big Benji USA court related post

Is there one with content and not quotes? 

I made some comments. But I think the funniest thing in that thread is how they're all screaming their head off and explaining how this or that means that or this forever because it's now Joever yet it's clear how few of them even know how courts operate at all in the first place let alone what the topic of the ruling is.

[Tektonic]

washing meat? Has anyone asked RFK's brain worm?

[Cauliflower Of Love]

see a big Benji USA court related post

Is there one with content and not quotes? 

I made some comments. But I think the funniest thing in that thread is how they're all screaming their head off and explaining how this or that means that or this forever because it's now Joever yet it's clear how few of them even know how courts operate at all in the first place let alone what the topic of the ruling is.

Sure, but their lack of knowledge on judiciary functionality is what is allowing them to realize these slow creeps of changes.

You, and auteur of authoritarianism, know better than most that these are the steps. 

I don't think ive ever cared about the circus but gathered cared about the clowns nose.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

And yes I find that benji knowing everything I type is ironic in what I say.

[Tektonic]

Previously, any of the country’s more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states.

Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case.

that's the TLDR; i read. A lot of sensationalism out there (i'm in OZ) so maybe you guys can distill it into an actuality.

[benji]

Their conception of the law seems to be that words are magic and that the legal system consists of people who knows spells. So Trump says a magic spell and then you find some judges to say a counter magic spell and so on until eventually someone wins. And unless there's a law saying you can't do something you can do whatever you want because magic so you can just go around changing reality as you see fit and everyone will chose to obey because magic. And any ruling you don't understand is clearly corrupt and part of an elaborate plot to achieve unlimited power (even though this already existed since not everything was verboten and people could just ignore those rules anyway) which had only been stopped until now by magic words that people were not using or something.

Then when it comes to the local law, it's perfectly fine for there to be no listed rules that apply (aka the law) and absolute zero checks or responsibility on the staff (aka cops) nor should anyone even have the ability to appeal publicly regarding any actions taken. And consent of the governed? Well, fuck that. Unchecked elite castes of self-declared experts are always the best way to achieve productive discussion.

In other words, I'm saying that if Trump strips an Era member of their citizenship and throws them in a black site, there's low cost options available for therapy.

[Tektonic]

the law is an ass; especially if it ever enacts a "no stabbing of mattresses" statute

-- fats4all presumably

[Potato]

At this point, what even is their to be said, it's evil pure and simple, I just can't see how you fix this anymore. I will never forgive The Supreme Court for this, it's an organisation that needs to be dissolved, die and it's judges tried for the blood they have and are going to cause. The US Government is less then a joke, it's just blatant evil, it's not just rotten at the core, it is the rot. I just, fuck.

I JUST, FUCK

The current membership of the supreme Court is not ruling in the way that I want. It's impossible to fix even though a democratic President could appoint left leaning judges like they have in the past. We should abolish it and summarily execute all the judges.

[Jansen]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-move-forward-with-his-policy-to-end-birthright-citizenship.1230096/#post-142026912

So basically, if you're the child of immigrants and live in a red state, you're screwed?

Remind me never to move to a red state...

I mean, how far does that go back? What if you're the grandchild of immigrants?

You go back 150 years or so and a couple of hundred million would lose citizenship.

No, the ruling had nothing to do with birthright citizenship. Everyone still has their citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled on this over a century ago.

So we're not saying you can strip people's citizenship, just that each and every person you do it to will have to sue individually, and zero preventative action can ever be taken to stop it

No, they're not saying you can strip anyone's citizenship. They did not rule on the executive order.

So much power is being transferred by this court that I don't know how they'll allow a Democrat into office to use it. They wouldn't dare suffer that to pass.

The people should still try but this is scary as shit.

They don't have to worry about a Democrat using it, not because there will never be another one, but because Democrats care about the rule of law.

My dude they'll IMMEDIATELY reverse course on this shit when it's a Dem President. Did they do this shit when Biden tried forgiving student loans?

So the actual ruling here is "the courts can no longer protect the people from the President unless we say so"

Taking a hammer and breaking the union into pieces

Yeah, they basically just broke any way of preserving basic federal rights.

Democrats were opposed to nationwide injunctions during Biden's term. This has been a bipartisan complaint and legal commentators of all sides did not believe they were important or necessary. They only came about a few years ago and were increasing in number leading many to believe they needed to be stopped.

Yeah I don't think elections matter anymore. We'll get President Vance, Don Jr or the corpse of Trump pooping in his diaper by 2028. And the country will cheer for it.

That's the spirit.

No.. not just red states

If you're ANYWHERE in the US and you aren't an actual plaintiff in a lawsuit against the government, you are screwed, even if you are within a district that a federal judge rules against the government

This decision is absolutely disastrous

And if you do sue you have to be willing and able to sue all the way up to SCOTUS because SCOTUS is the only court that will have any sense of permanent weight. And because it's SCOTUS whatever they rule against you is effectively law.

This isn't the full-on nuclear option but if I'm reading it right it basically paves the way in gold for Trump to push the button with absolutely nothing to stop him. So of course he fucking will.

IANAL but this is my take as well. They're making it very hard to oppose the Executive.

This goes way beyond birthright citizenship. Anything Trump does and you oppose, you'll have to fight personally in court, after the fact. This obviously can't work.

  Are these dudes just figuring out courts work and have always worked?

Ending the Constitution by legal gridlock one amendment at a time

This has always been the plan.

If ICE disappears you in the middle of the night I'm not sure how you're going to be able to join as a plaintiff to really anything unless you have family or friends that can do it on your behalf

And if you join as a plaintiff is the federal government required to bring you back to the country?

What a mess

How exactly do you think you were going to oppose it before this ruling if they disappeared you?  

It's basically permission for a president to do *anything*, while creating a process so cumbersome to undo any of it that even someone who can afford to do so will take years to get through the process, and even then will only be able to get restitution for themselves, not reversal of the illegal policy.

Like by this logic, Trump could launch a policy of sending out the national guard to shoot a handful of random citizens every day, and all you could do is sue to claim that your relative's *particular* shooting was illegal and you're owed restitution, not stop the program. It's insane.

No, that's not how it works at all. Presidents are not granted powers they do not have. Why do you guys keep thinking this with every ruling?

Just break the fucking country apart at this point. There's no point in the US if the rule of law is nonexistent.

The entire concept of the Union doesn't work when every single system of government rolls over for one man with a blind hatred of everyone who isn't himself. Just end the experiment.

Well now we suddenly oppose the state.

Also, Dems need to be abusing this ruling to its fullest extent. Go to states and sue about mifepristone access since that dipshit Judge Kacsmaryk there issued a nationwide injuction about it. Start passing gun bans and make each state sue.

What the fuck does this even mean you drunk? A state passes a gun ban and then sues itself to overturn it? WHAT ARE YOU EVEN SAYING?

Er....I thought it was a slam dunk even for this court to say this was unconstitutional?

I can understand why people would think that, but never underestimate the ability for the GOP to choose the worst option for the country at any given point.

Or maybe you should understand that the question of birthright citizenship wasn't before the court.

I genuinely believe lower courts should defy this ruling and continue making nationwide injunctions anyway.

Okay? Nobody will follow them.

This seems a foundation for breaking the union. There's no point to being part of an alliance that doesn't have a mechanism to protect everyone in it.

Their ultimate goal is a unitary king who can do what he wants with no effective constitution. And a high court of wizard judges who, after the fact, make tweaks to the king's edicts that protect anyone they wish to retain franchise and favor.

 

I have always thought that any Supreme Court Ruling that changes existing Laws should by Law trigger review and vote by Congress. It would be a way to ensure Congress actually acts in cases where the Court is changing something and force the check.

This would just be eliminating judicial review and substituting legislative review.

This is an idiotic ruling and should be distinguished from those in which the court at least has some legal foundation to fall back upon as tenuous as it may be. We've had a few cases like that where yes, the Supreme Court has the ability to give legal deference to the executive, while conveniently ignoring that Trump is the worst good-faith actor imaginable.

But this, this is insanity. This is perhaps one of the most obvious quintessential examples where nothing but a nationwide injunction will suffice to address the harm. To do otherwise means a legal citizen of a state that upheld birthright citizenship may go into labor while traveling in a state that rejected it, and after giving birth they and their child may be considered illegals and subject to deportation. A legal framework where your citizenship flips on and off as you cross imaginary borders.

This is lunacy, the court is quite literally allowing for us to have birthright states and non-birthright states, like the good old 1800s.

Correct, and if you're a red state, they would not join the suit and therefore we would have half a country with birthright citizenship, half without.
We have a country where people are going to be crossing borders to end/have births.

This was not the case in the 1800s and is not the case now, the Court's old ruling on birthright citizenship still says Trump's executive order is invalid and states cannot determine citizenship.

Honestly at this point armed conflict is inevitable. The only question is when, not if.

Today everyone — except the made men of Trump and his king's court — became an outlaw. This is Middle Ages shit.

The government is attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship in order to block a common pathway to legal residency and eventual citizenship for immigrant families. By doing so, they aim to reduce the incentive for undocumented immigrants to come to the US in hopes that their US born children, who are currently granted automatic citizenship, could later sponsor them. An added benefit, removing birthright citizenship would also make it easier for authorities to deport entire families, since they no longer have to deal with the due process issues afforded to a US citizen.

All of this is unconstitutional but SCOTUS doesn't seemed phased by the power they are conceding.

The Supreme Court didn't rule any of that is constitutional.

Fuck SCOTUS.

These motherfuckers are complicit. If nothing matters, if the constitution doesn't matter, fuck everything, right? Fuck ICE, fuck Trump fuck all of these fascist motherfuckers!

Keep fighting this shit. Don't let these motherfuckers take your neighbors. Your friends. Your family.

FUCK. THEM!!

Keep fighting, America. Keep protesting. Keep gathering folks. These motherfuckers won't win!

Court that barely is in session will make all legal decisions on individual lawsuits. Definitely sustainable.

Guy who definitely knows how courts currently work.

So basically if they come and pick you up they can basically do whatever they want as long as they keep you from individually suing?

That's what they're hoping for, too. Because they'll blacksite your ass the moment they grab you and then pretend they don't know where you are so your lawyer won't even be able to find you to file the legal paperwork on your behalf.

So if someone gets snatched ICE on the grounds of being accused of being an illegal immigrant, even if they are a legal citizen, the only thing saving them is suing your way to the Supreme Court?

No, same as always, sue ICE in the relevant court.

Kinda crazy how you can effectively make more than half of America illegal citizens due to this.

Right now everyone is illegal. No one can help anyone. There are no automatic protections. If you are gone'd, you have no rights because you can't fight to prove you have any and no one else can defend on your behalf.

Fucking ballgame. We're all on Trump's lawn.

Is he or PlanetSmasher going to win?

At which point nobody is American except people Trump likes.

Which is again, why I'm saying there's no point in the Union anymore. If protective law doesn't apply to anyone, why follow ANY federal law? The entire concept of the nation is a complete and utter failure in the face of these kinds of rulings, so states shouldn't even bother considering themselves part of it anymore.

Just let it all fall apart. Let it die, and let Trump go down in history as the man who killed the US.

It means functionally unchallengeable authority over people who have zero rights.

Project 2025 in full, bass-boosted swing.

Which also has a boomerang effect of - if nobody has any protection, nobody is going to feel any reason to follow any existing laws because the country isn't providing the basic rule of law protection to its people that's supposed to be endemic to the entire concept of a nation in the first place.

Project 2025 thinks that it's going to result in a world where they have total Christofascist control of everything and everyone, but in reality it's basically going to result in absolute chaos. Once it becomes clear that nobody has anything left to lose, violence is going to start erupting everywhere.

I'm not American, so please bear with me. But isn't this almost union-breaking? There are going to be red states actually hunting their own citizens and blue states trying to keep them.

It's not almost union-breaking, it's blatantly union-breaking.

I think he's got it.

Kinda crazy how you can effectively make more than half of America illegal citizens due to this.

Without Birthright Citizenship exactly zero people are Citizens of the US. It would mean there exists no Citizenship in the US. In theory wouldn't it also mean the US Government has authority over nobody? Without a replacement of how Citizenship is defined this makes no sense. Additionally you would also need an Amendment to define that since an Amendment already defines it which will never happen in the current environment.

[Jansen]

Once the camps get set up someone hand me a gun

[Jansen]

Genocidal Jansen sounds nice

[Cauliflower Of Love]

god damn benji absolutely doesn't understand a single function of how the US is supposed to work.

[benji]

Previously, any of the country’s more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states.

Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case.

that's the TLDR; i read. A lot of sensationalism out there (i'm in OZ) so maybe you guys can distill it into an actuality.

That was the controversy that you just had to find a single judge to block a law and didn't ever need to actually bring it to court. They didn't rule out nationwide injunctions either, not even on the topic of this specific executive order. 

What they're really doing is saying there needs to be a set of rules and procedures for it rather than any judge being able to do them whenever they want, which is very Roberts/ACB/others in jurisprudence, but the Supreme Court itself basically never issues these because it doesn't really have the power to. The common law will just establish it through practice if, as typically assumed, Congress refuses to. That's partly why there were so many opinions issued on this. I think Jackson's dissent is really the only one that seemed to suggest there should be no limits at all on nationwide injunctions, the progressive justices dissent is mostly saying the court is playing politics with this specific case (which, duh) not taking issue with a hypothetical limitation.

I have no problem with nationwide injunctions but it also doesn't seem very radical at all to limit their scope somehow and why people who love the state would want that. I think the porn ruling was the easily worse one, and Kagan shows why it's incoherent in her dissent, but it's also not very radical. Notably nobody attempted to get and got a nationwide injunction on blocking identify verification laws.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

This is not to say that it isnt susceptible to being commandeered, obviously.

[benji]

god damn benji absolutely doesn't understand a single function of how the US is supposed to work.

[Daffy Duck]

Long post

I understand why they're doing it.



But still.



Absolutely disgusting.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not

Not joking. The original Ratatouille is my favorite Pixar film and I'd rather they just not touch it with a sequel.

You sound like an uptight critic who's so set in his beliefs he can't consider that something outside his purview might be good.

Or I just sound like someone who is wary of a sequel. Why the fuck are you trying to psychoanalyze me over a meaningless opinion?

Because it's ironic that you're as dismissive as Anton Ego. You should learn a thing or two from your favorite Pixar movie

You should learn how to not act like an asshole.

I've merely pointed out how your response to this sequel is so similar to the antagonist of your favorite Pixar movie. There's no need to cuss me out. Take a deep breath before posting please.

On the contrary, you've been condescending and presumptive for most of this conversation, hence why I said you're acting like an asshole. I'm quite calm in this assessment of your behavior and thus also don't need to be told to breathe- once again, you're assuming something about me without actually knowing anything. Empty head, big mouth.

A lot of y'all on this forum are way too comfortable talking to strangers any ol' kind of way and escalating simple conversations for no discernible reason. Then when someone like me calls it like I see it, you want to put your hands up in retreat and tell people to calm down. Nope. We're in here now because for some reason my initial reaction to the announcement of an animated film annoyed you enough to, again, act like an asshole.

It's not even like this initial reaction cannot change either. I've not made a final assessment of the film- it doesn't even exist yet in any meaningful capacity. Every reaction to this news is just that- a reaction. It's, as I said, meaningless. So why you decided to single me out, again psychoanalyze me, and also imply I'm too ignorant to understand the themes of a Pixar film eludes me beyond maybe this being the result of some stupid online beef you've got with me yet which I've forgotten.

Any last words on this matter or are we done?

The bold parts are interesting because she does this all the time to people, and it’s also rife with all the other prominents on there in trying to ban bait people.

Damn, all this because you didn't get my reference to Anton Ego?

It does not make me an asshole because I compared your dismissal of the sequel to the plot of the original movie. You are wrong, you missed my reference, and now you're scared to back down.

I didn't realize referencing the original movie when taking about the sequel could be so triggering.

I got your reference; I just didn't appreciate it. I truly don't know who you are and don't need you on my back because you got triggered that I simply rebuked a film announcement.

Can you please explain how comparing your dismissal of the announced sequel to Anton Ego's dismissal of food was unfair to you?

You are still missing the point that it wasn't about your comparison. It was about your attitude. I wasn't the only one in here who decried this announcement, and yet you singled me out with the presumption that I don't know anything about Ratatouille (why assume I'm too stupid to know what the film is about?) and that I needed to "learn something." Like, seriously ask yourself why be an ass like this? This all could've gone better if you weren't trying to pull one over on me and just wanted to discuss my reservations about this announcement like a normal person. I clarified your confusion over whether or not I was joking in earnest, and you couldn't even return the same respect. Again, ask yourself why?

If you're not going to try to see where the conversation broke down, and continue to keep insisting that you need to reduce me to a cartoon character to make some sort of gotcha, this is a waste of time and I'd highly prefer you just not respond to me anymore.

I didn't make you a cartoon character, I pointed out that reflexively dismissing a movie is exactly what Anton Ego would do if he was a film critic. It's not a gotcha. It's not a test to see how well you know the film. It is, though, an apt point that you should learn something from the movie you love. That doesn't make me an ass, it just makes me aware of the obvious. The conversation broke down when you said this sequel was "absolutely disgusting" which is just a preposterous reaction.

So now that I understand it wasn't my message that irked you but how I communicated my message, let's go back to the main question: How is your dismissal of this sequel different from Anton Ego's dismissal of food he doesn't deem worthy of his great taste?

Let's not. This is boring.

Then another poster digs out Gigglepoo

This is really rich considering you just said you don't like Elio and didn't bother to elaborate on it.

Very typical of uptight people that absolutely have no taste but I suppose that's typical of... An ass

This movie is serviceable. Wasn't funny. Wasn't heartwarming. Just felt like a paint-by-numbers animated flick that will be quickly forgotten

Didn’t like being called out lol

Gigglepoo was trying to hard to go after NepNep here, seems like people are trying to get her riled up everywhere she goes.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/pixar%E2%80%99s-sequel-era-claims-another-ratatouille-2-is-in-the-works.1228374/page-4#post-141994866

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Previously, any of the country’s more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts – the lowest level of federal court, which handles trials and initial rulings – could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halt government policies across all 50 states.

Under the supreme court ruling, however, those court orders only apply to the specific plaintiffs – for example, groups of states or non-profit organizations – that brought the case.

that's the TLDR; i read. A lot of sensationalism out there (i'm in OZ) so maybe you guys can distill it into an actuality.

That was the controversy that you just had to find a single judge to block a law and didn't ever need to actually bring it to court. They didn't rule out nationwide injunctions either, not even on the topic of this specific executive order. 

What they're really doing is saying there needs to be a set of rules and procedures for it rather than any judge being able to do them whenever they want, which is very Roberts/ACB/others in jurisprudence, but the Supreme Court itself basically never issues these because it doesn't really have the power to. The common law will just establish it through practice if, as typically assumed, Congress refuses to. That's partly why there were so many opinions issued on this. I think Jackson's dissent is really the only one that seemed to suggest there should be no limits at all on nationwide injunctions, the progressive justices dissent is mostly saying the court is playing politics with this specific case (which, duh) not taking issue with a hypothetical limitation.

I have no problem with nationwide injunctions but it also doesn't seem very radical at all to limit their scope somehow and why people who love the state would want that. I think the porn ruling was the easily worse one, and Kagan shows why it's incoherent in her dissent, but it's also not very radical. Notably nobody attempted to get and got a nationwide injunction on blocking identify verification laws. 

Yea, fuck you.

They ruled on HOW nationwide injunctions could be used (per case). The refused to rule on the actual EO. 

They said it has to be case by case instead of a whole which removes anybody explicitly asking. 

You should have have an issue on federal national injunctions not being applied wholly instead of per case, unless well your stupid or want that.

[benji]

Yea, fuck you.

They ruled on HOW nationwide injunctions could be used (per case). The refused to rule on the actual EO. 

They said it has to be case by case instead of a whole which removes anybody explicitly asking. 

You should have have an issue on federal national injunctions not being applied wholly instead of per case, unless well your stupid or want that.

Because injunctions can only apply to a case, if there's no case what's being enjoined? You don't have to issue an injunction to block illegal acts, they're illegal. Instead they're saying "well, maybe these laws are unconstitutional so I can block it" which is the type of unlimited power we're being told they're necessary to thwart.

It also forecloses actual cases being brought, which denies relief to parties with actual damages.

There's a reason nationwide injunctions basically were almost never used until Republican judges started blocking Obama with them. It allows a single judge to dictate law for the entire country without having to actually litigate the law or hear from any parties.

[Jansen]

Goddamn I give up what's considered "good" horror nowadays sucks. The Substance has a good message stretched to its absolute limits. Why the fuck is it 2:21 mins long? Jesus Christ ever since hereditary shit has been going downhill with artsy A24 crap. 


Please bring back Jason and Freddy from my childhood

[Gameboy Nostalgia]

Lots of Islamophobia in this thread since the ruling.

[Jansen]

What's going on here? Is Benji arguing with himself?

[Besticus Maximus]

What's going on here? Is Benji arguing with himself?

Lawyersperging