Posts Made By: James Lacey

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

I asked ChatGBT to rewrite that in a more reasonable manner:

"It’s not that everyone here agrees on everything — it’s just that most people engage in a way that feels respectful and constructive.

I find that our interactions tend to bring out frustration in me, and honestly, I usually avoid engaging with people who affect me that way. Maybe I should do the same here. Still, I can't help but notice how a single comment can set off a lengthy, intense response from you, often filled with harsh labels. Personally, I prefer to keep things simpler — sometimes a single word can say more than a whole paragraph."

Love how it left out my single word, but acknowledged my reason for using it.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Six important rulings expected.  The first one is huge - the Court just held that a single district court judge or panel could not enjoin an executive order across the entire nation.  The district court injunction is limited to their own jurisdiction.   The context was birthright citizenship and the opinion does not touch the merits.   The constitutionality of birthright citizenship will be determined later.

This case is much bigger than birthright citizenship of course.  Many executive orders are under what (as of yesterday)
 were nationwide preliminary injunction while the litigation progresses.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Six important rulings expected.  The first one is huge - the Court just held that a single district court judge or panel could not enjoin an executive order across the entire nation.  The district court injunction is limited to their own jurisdiction.   The context was birthright citizenship and the opinion does not touch the merits.   The constitutionality of birthright citizenship will be determined later.

This case is much bigger than birthright citizenship of course.  Many executive orders are under what (as of yesterday)
 were nationwide preliminary injunction while the litigation progresses.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Simple, since you are utterly backwards in your understanding on this.  

The court did precisely the opposite of what you imply, they said that the courts couldn't take control of the Executive branch of gov't.

If the next Leftist President tries to make that absurd imposition on the 2nd amendment, then legal groups will challenge it as they always do.

Then the SC will take up the issue. What don't you understand about that?  

Where did the court say that every EO is unable to be challenged? 

Apparently you are SO confused it is hard to describe in words what mindset you employ.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

On the contrary, it is a HUGE victory for the US Constitution.  

Any group can do whatever it likes to Circumvent the law.  First they have to show they have standing to be heard by the court. 

Your mentality is utterly bizarre but then it is borne of and holds with radical leftist ideology just as I've stated all along for years.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

l did read your words, and they're about as ignorant of what just happened today as they imply.

You stated this:  

"So, what prevents the next Democratic president from implementing an EO that seriously restricts 2A rights, even though it's unconstitutional? And while a court challenge takes years to wind its way through the process, it remains in effect. You can imagine a certain political demographic is not going to be happy about that".

Ok there are Your words exactly and they belie a complete ignorance on your part of the irrelevance of today's ruling on your statement there in bold.

Obviously you are completely confused, because by stating that boldfaced sentence, You imply that NOW something has suddenly CHANGED with respect to your statement there.

What changed from yesterday with respect to your confusion above?

Yesterday, before this ruling, your statement there applied the same as it applies today.

In other words, nothing in today's ruling prevents the Executive of the USA from instituting an executive order restricting 2A rights this very day, even if it is unconstitutional.

And guess what genius, nothing yesterday precluded the Executive from instituting an executive order restricting 2A rights yesterday.

So explain how today's ruling changed life for the President and his executive order.

Because you are angry that I called out your confusion there, don't get all pissed off.  Instead, explain your implication and if nothing HAS changed with respect to any President's ability to issue an executive order, which it hasn't, then why mention it?  

Your statement there and your worry and hang wringing there is irrelevant.  Yesterday is no different from today.

As I already informed you, and I did so such that I could curb your confusion, all that today's ruling did was cement in stone the FACT that what are essentially the lowest courts in the land should not have the power to limit the President's powers under the US Constitution and his delineated powers under the document.

These low level courts don't have the power nor do they enjoy the ability to make injunctions that affect every person in the United States.  

Are you now sufficiently thinking straight or are you still totally confused?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Really are angry aren't you?  It sure appears so. If you're going to post irrelevant drivel, then expect a challenge to your statements.  

Maybe you went to the same school of thought by which KBJ was influenced?  

I apologize for triggering you.  There may be a medication out there somewhere that will cure your insanity.  I suggest you find some right away!

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Don’t expect a reply. Rich will ignore your post just like everyone else ignored his three posts today. LOL.

Originally Posted by James Brown

I'll have to check on this.  A class action case is only pending in one district, it just has lots of plaintiffs.  So maybe you misread the bit about it being a class action?   (On edit, no you did not misread - but I think class action is a response to another important aspect of the case.  see my post below.  Gonna have to read the opinion to sort this out. This ruling will make a huge difference as a deterrent to either side forum shopping.)  

The work around seems to me, if you insist on seeking a preliminary injunction, is to file parallel cases, one in each district you care about.   You may get an injunction in some districts, maybe you won't in others.  That is indeed how it used to be done in high profile cases.  I think the "nationwide injunction" thing is new.

I'm not sure this is a victory for right wingers,  but it is a victory for those who oppose forum shopping and for those who are uneasy with judges exercising nation-wide authority.  It only seems like a right wing victory now, as you noted, because of who is issuing the nation-wide injunctions, and who was being enjoined.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Speaking of deportations, did you see that Abrego Garcia is back in the states, in custody, and subject to additional hearings? 

If this was big news, I missed it.  Or did the press soft-sell this story?  Of course a return to the US is what should have happened with a lot less fuss.  I wonder if we will even hear how the evidentiary hearing turns out?