tvc184

Yes but it can be done.
 There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.
There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.
So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?
I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action. 

Yes but it can be done.
 There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion.
There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses.
So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision?
I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action. 

In wrapping up this session the Supreme Court finished strong.
In the last couple of days we have:
Trump v. Casa - The Supreme Court said that federal district judges have been greatly overstepping their authority in issuing universal injunctions. As an example from what I googled, G W Bush had 12 universal injunctions in 8 years. Obama had 20 in 8 years. Trump has had 40 in less than 5 months. Of those, 35 were issued in only 5 districts. So out of almost 100 federal district courts, 5 have been used as a hatchet job. Anything that Trump does, take it to one of those federal courts and end it. Had Obama had this happen so the same pace as Trump, he would have had 900 universal injunctions, not 20.
Mahmoud v. Taylor - In Montgomery County, Maryland, the school board decided that several LGBTQ books would be used from Pre-K through 5th grade. The district however had an opt out option if the teacher used the books for class assignments. Not so shockingly, the school district was stunned at the volume of opt out requests. So they changed the policy to no opt outs allowed for any reason. The Supreme Court struck down the ban on an opt out choice as it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Apparently some people have forgotten or haven’t understood that freedom of religion at school doesn’t mean only that religion can’t be pushed at public schools but it also can’t be denied. Seriously, who thinks that reading books on sexuality starting at 4 years old is a good thing… much less forced. 
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton - Yep, a Texas case. Texas passed a law where accessing online adult content sites required age verification. The FSC claimed that it violated the free speech of adults to require age verification. The Texas law did not ban anything but only required age verification. The FSC claimed that showing your age violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that the state governments already restrict such material from over the county sales and a person can be asked to verify age by producing an ID. The same is true for tobacco and alcohol sales as examples. So why should digital media have less of a standard? The Supreme Court said that it didn’t and having as age requirement for online material that minors might access is no different than face to face, over the counter transactions.
Overall it seems like a great couple of days from SCOTUS.  

Class actions require a few extra steps. Yes, can get same results. But, it will be interesting to see a court certify harm to a group of ‘future anchor babies’ since their parents are breaking the law. Create a law for those breaking the law by entering the country illegally? I could see the court easily certifying a class action for those here now. Especially, one of the judges that already ruled the EO unconstitutional. Future? Not quite sure that will fly. Will definitely take some twisting.
How would the court define and certify harm to anyone from anywhere at any time in the future who happens to have a baby while on U.S. soil?
Would seem overly broad for a certified class action.
This question will be at SCOTUS again this fall as Bondi said. Meanwhile, it will stop at a judgement from an appeals court since SCOTUS doesn’t return until October.
My thoughts.

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.
In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.
Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.
The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 
So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.
 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.
It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.
Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.

🤣🤣🤣
From the left side of the aisle:
Trump has been in office 8 weeks and stocks are down!!! 👍🏼
Twelve weeks later…..
Stocks are hitting all time highs!!! 😡😡😡
🤣🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 You would think that he was named the head of the CIA or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for this military.
 He is the head of an agency with less than 20 people. It’s function is to coordinate with federal, state and local governments and non-profit organizations and universities mainly by giving grants for the study on how to recognize and prevent terrorism.
OMG!! The country is going to fold if some free money to non-profits and universities isn’t divided up right!!!
😂😂😂😂😂

Expected.
Yes, I expected a one word response rather than addressing my comment.
It should appear quite obvious to anyone that the original post was to try to make it seem like this guy was the head of Homeland Security “terrorist prevention” as in, having some authority over the military, CIA and so on. I wonder how many people reading the opening comment believed that it was a person of some real authority and not a group of less than 20 people who coordinates to give out grants to non-profit private organizations and universities.
Yep, absolutely expected! 

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.
In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.
Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.
The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 
So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.
 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.
It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.
Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.

Today, the Supreme Court made a ruling that appears to permanently end what has become too commonplace lately, universal or nationwide injunctions.
In the last couple of decades, it has become an issue with federal district judges issuing a ruling in court that stopped a nationwide law or presidential executive order.
Federal district judges are the federal equivalent of a county felony judge in Texas. If you get indicted for a felony in Jefferson County, for example, you will go to trial in one of the three felony courts in Jefferson County in Beaumont. The district judge’s authority deals with a motion or a trial in front of that judge. The district judge is not an appeals court level but the trial court level.
The Supreme Court just issued a ruling that the universal (nationwide) injunction was beyond the authority of the federal district judges. 
So when Trump or any future president issues an executive order or the DOJ tries to enforce a federal law, one of the trial court level federal district judges can’t with the stroke of a pen end the order or the law.
 The case is Trump v. Casa about birthright citizenship. The ruling today has nothing to do with that case which still has to be hurt. What it seem to do was to stop the federal district judges for putting a nationwide halt to executive orders.
It seems like this has been brewing for a long time and the Supreme Court finally stepped in.
Also Justice Amy Coney Barrett blasted Justice Brown Jackson who dissented in the ruling. Her comment was that Brown Jackson: “Decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary”.

When this decision is finally addressed it will be 6-2. Justice Jackson will have to excuse herself as she can’t even define what a woman is…
Citizenship would be way out of her (it?) league.

Releasing video goes by;
1.  State law on allowing, requiring or restricting release in an open records act. People sometimes believe that open records or Freedom of Information type laws are universal on being mandatory to release everything. That is not correct. Some things have to be released, some might be optional and other records are restricted and can’t  be released. 
2. Department policy.
It is sometimes a legal issue depending on state law and then it is a separate political issue. 

That is one of the funniest things that I have ever seen.
 The way he said it was hilarious but the bleeped out version won’t do it….. 🤣🤣🤣

A video or videos was released to the news media. They were supposed to view it but not release it to the public.
I don’t know how that has held up….
A talking head or two claims that there is nothing on the video showing self defense.
Without seeing it, it is impossible to know with the way the media spins things. Even seeing it might not be good enough to show the incident.
Anyway, for the moment there are claims that self defense won’t stand up in court. 

Trump uses the f word. 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

According to Trump they are…..
sadly, some on this forum will be disappointed

Oprah was in it. She’s the master of deception. 

It would definitely be strange for a guy in his 50s to randomly pull up and shoot someone.
Teens or 29s? Yes. 

…. which was a fictional story. 

1.  No law requires it.
2. Operational security.

Absolutely not. Article II in the Constitution makes the president the Commander-In-Chief of all US military forces.
Article I grants Congress the authority to declare war but doesn’t define a war. For example, when Obama authorized the military to invade a sovereign country, Pakistan, for the purpose of killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden, he did not seek congressional approval nor should he have.
Is capturing a terrorist a “war” requiring Congress to approve beforehand? Should there be a debate for a few days and a public vote to authorize such an action? 
Sorry but that is nonsense.
After America withdrew from Vietnam, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution (or Act)… which is probably unconstitutional but that’s not the point at the moment.
 The WPR requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military action and to keep Congress informed for the next 60 days. They can then decide to declare war, authorize further action or demand withdrawal.  The act also allows for a 30 day withdrawal period.
Note that the Korean War, Vietnam War and two Gulf Wars have been conducted without a declaration of war. So since 1945 the US has conducted at least 4 major wars…. without Congress having declared war.
But wait!! Now they want to declare a war in order for the Commander-In-Chief to act? 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, let’s start NOW!! Forget 80 years of not declaring a war.
In any case, the WPR allows the president to act and notify Congress within 48 hours. They have been notified.
 The WPR allows the president 60 to conduct military actions and 30 more days to withdraw without congressional approval.
Next question? 

That’s it!
 
 I am not voting for Trump in 2028!!

Iran said that they removed the urinariam before the air sticks. This made my day. Trump is so incompetent.

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

Absolutely not. Article II in the Constitution makes the president the Commander-In-Chief of all US military forces.
Article I grants Congress the authority to declare war but doesn’t define a war. For example, when Obama authorized the military to invade a sovereign country, Pakistan, for the purpose of killing or capturing Osama Bin Laden, he did not seek congressional approval nor should he have.
Is capturing a terrorist a “war” requiring Congress to approve beforehand? Should there be a debate for a few days and a public vote to authorize such an action? 
Sorry but that is nonsense.
After America withdrew from Vietnam, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution (or Act)… which is probably unconstitutional but that’s not the point at the moment.
 The WPR requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military action and to keep Congress informed for the next 60 days. They can then decide to declare war, authorize further action or demand withdrawal.  The act also allows for a 30 day withdrawal period.
Note that the Korean War, Vietnam War and two Gulf Wars have been conducted without a declaration of war. So since 1945 the US has conducted at least 4 major wars…. without Congress having declared war.
But wait!! Now they want to declare a war in order for the Commander-In-Chief to act? 🤣🤣🤣
Yeah, let’s start NOW!! Forget 80 years of not declaring a war.
In any case, the WPR allows the president to act and notify Congress within 48 hours. They have been notified.
 The WPR allows the president 60 to conduct military actions and 30 more days to withdraw without congressional approval.
Next question? 

Me either, unless he decides to run for that third term.