do you, though? You consistently come out in defense of efforts aimed at the least, you argue for going beyond an eye for an eye as punishment, you degrade women, you reject the beatitudes...
in what way, other than praising yourself, do you have a grasp?
I think if you asked those of us with legal knowledge "should the SC offer some clearer guidance about when a nationwide injunction is proper?" there's a good chance most(all?) of us would offer at least a qualified "yes"
We might be a little nervous about this group writing that guidance. We might not like what they come up with. But in principle I suspect that we largely think that there *should* be limits of some sort
Before I just mentioned it, I bet Riley thought we'd all oppose the idea
Without getting in to the nicities of Past opinions, it is on its face ridiculous that a district judge can bind the hands of the duly elected president of the United States with a nationwide injunction. Any voting American can see that.
This president issues an EO banning Christianity and ordering the arrest of folks with views similar to yours. You bring a case against the president regarding this EO properly challenging it as an obvious violation of your rights.
How broadly can the district go in stopping this executive order that plainly seeks to violate the constitutional rights of folks like you? Must they say "well, only Riley is in this case, so I must allow this illegal effort to proceed in the other 49 states"?
How far do you make this limitation? Can the district court judge apply the ruling to the who circuit? Can it apply to the full state? Must it be limited to the specific district within the state?
I've joked about it before, but I actually do view his tradition as being a sect of christianity. I think the sort of division he makes to condemn catholics (and probably others) is improper
I guarantee that you have cheered every time a judge like Kacsmaryk has issued a nationwide injunction, because you like what his rulings do. Do not pretend to have any principle at all on this matter, and do not pretend that your deceit conforms to the rule of higher law
It is not on its face ridiculous if the president is(or may be) doing something illegal/unconstitutional.
You also consistently treat your own view as universal, which is plainly absurd. That you think you are the arbiter of what is proper is about your massive ego, not about the law
If you’ve gotten to the point where the script is looping back to the beginning, let us know. It’s clear you do not possess the ability to learn new information, and watching you repeat yourself all over would be pretty boring.
Dersh has been a joke for years. The legal community laughs at him because he just makes shit up, but he does that in a way that appeals to simpletons who want an activist court and an authoritarian state
FFS, he claimed a gag order on Trump was unconstitutional because you can’t stop a defendant talking about a witness. Such orders are routinely upheld as part of judiciary discretion to ensure the integrity of the legal system.
He just says outrageous shit so Fox will pay him to say them
on air.
Comments
in what way, other than praising yourself, do you have a grasp?
You are a false Christian who spits on Jesus.
And knowing who people are based on their acts not their words?
And our point all along has been that your “predictions” and assertions about US law are worthless because you have no grasp on such law.
And it won’t be the “law of Christ” that SCOTUS will look at.
I think if you asked those of us with legal knowledge "should the SC offer some clearer guidance about when a nationwide injunction is proper?" there's a good chance most(all?) of us would offer at least a qualified "yes"
Before I just mentioned it, I bet Riley thought we'd all oppose the idea
I think we all have beliefs about what they are likely to do and should do under the law, but not what they will do.
The next president is far, far left. And a massive authoritarian. They share a view of the president's authority with Trump.
You also consistently treat your own view as universal, which is plainly absurd. That you think you are the arbiter of what is proper is about your massive ego, not about the law
You’re also just repeating the line you were programmed with, while ignoring all the Republican justices who support nationwide injunctions.
I honestly thought this tweet was from someone else, mocking your claim.
And Alan Dershowitz went off the deep end years ago.
He just says outrageous shit so Fox will pay him to say them
on air.