The SCOTUS has ruled to limit the lower courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.
The decision:
10 Likes
8 Likes
It is a step.
8 Likes
Finally starting to put the power back where it should be.
8 Likes
An expectation of democrat mostly peaceful protests increasing significantly after this ruling is a reasonable one. There are, or were, many injunctions in place, so the protest du jour will be anyone’s guess.
7 Likes
Still WINNING!
7 Likes
What are your thoughts on Sotomayor’s dissent based, in part, on this ruling limiting the ability of the courts to enjoin unconstitutional gun control laws?
3 Likes
I think it’s telling that the two things she used in her dissent, seizing firearms from law-abiding citizens & preventing people of certain faiths from gathering, are two things the left is guilty of.
That wasn’t your question though.
For instances such as that, however, there remains avenues of seeking relief that don’t involve a singular favorable judge in a lower court dictating the law of the land nationally, even if only temporarily in many cases.
Both sides of the aisle have used this tactic, neither should. While that is true, it is also true that the left uses it far more often than do their counterparts.
9 Likes
Because, at the moment, they have the Judges on the bench that are ideologically aligned with the left agenda…
5 Likes
Honestly, I just thought it was interesting that the basis for the dissent in this case was concern over potentially hindering the ability of the courts to protect citizens from a governmental violation of constitutional rights, with an emphasis specifically on the 2A.
Not something I expected from Sotomayor.
4 Likes
I see your point, and that was a second or third thought of mine as well when I read the decision.
My point, though, is that it is unlikely she would take the stance of protecting the citizens from governmental overreach on either type of hypothetical cases she used as an example. In my opinion, her dissent would appear more meaningful and of actual concern had she chosen a topic(s) that would align with her actual views while also appealing to the “other” side. Instead, it’s seems hypocritical and appears more spiteful than thoughtful. Either way, I’d still disagree with her.
Overall, I agree with the majority on this. The lower courts were never meant to wield the power to halt the Executive branch in its tracks nationally when hearing a case for a singular plaintiff or on an isolated/singular instance.
8 Likes
I don’t think the dissent was out of spite, per se, but was rather intended to poke fun at the majority by highlighting potential adverse impacts of the ruling on issues THEY care about.
Either way, it will work itself out eventually.
4 Likes
This was big. It wont stop circuit court judges from doing it again, as long as they atleast slow trump down while it goes through the process.
Trump got a win on that one and parents got one also
8 Likes
It was an interesting ruling. Justice Barrett presented a very well-reasoned and anchored in statute and case law majority opinion. Justice Jackson’s dissent, not so much, which is unusual for her. I don’t often agree with her conclusions, but her arguments usually have some basis in statute and case law. But not this one. It read more like a Schumer Senate floor speech that a Supreme Court Justice dissenting opinion.
8 Likes
I’d look for some kind of nasty surprise(s) on 7/4.
3 Likes