Supreme Court shoots itself in the foot.

[busybee01]

Wrong.

The lower court already ruled, hence the petition for an injunction.

Judicial review has ended, the law is in full effect and being enforced.

That ruling was too radical for even John Roberts.

 

[Lastamender]

This isn't "current events, it's a a cheap effort sponsored by Newsweek's "Derrogh Roche" for democrats to expand the Supreme Court.

Nobody ever said their lies were not calculated. But lying is what they do.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The non-decision. They refused to act on a law that any idiot who can see lightning and hear thunder knows is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs haven't got standing to go to the SCOTUS. They have to go through the local Texas courts, then the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, THEN they can appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[rightwinger]

What McConnell did was enforce the the Biden rule.

Biden never enforced the ”Biden Rule”

 

[busybee01]

Wrong. The law had not been decided by the Supreme Court. In fact, in their denial of the injunction, they left the door open for judicial review of the Texas law.

What the Supreme Court did was unprecedented. John Roberts was right to say that a injunction should have been granted until the decision was reviewed by the courts.

John Roberts
The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented. The legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks, and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large. The desired consequence appears to be to insulate the State from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime.

The State defendants argue that they cannot be restrained from enforcing their rules because they do not enforce them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner.

 

[busybee01]

What McConnell did was enforce the the Biden rule.

No he did not. You are a typical lying weasel.

 

[Lastamender]

Biden never enforced the ”Biden Rule”

Who cares, McConnell did.

 

[Lastamender]

No he did not. You are a typical lying weasel.

Oh yes, he did.

 

[AZrailwhale]

lol

True rightwing ignorance and idiocy – the Court is supposed to be not partisan at all.

Correct, but liberals have been using it to force social changes they couldn't get through the legislatures for a century or so. Roe v Wade is a perfect example. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal Government supervision over abortion rights or "privacy." In fact the Tenth Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal Government from doing ANYTHING not specifically allowed in the Constitution.

 

[busybee01]

This SC has shown it is bipartisan. No need to change.

No it has not. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration policy. They are now denying that right to Biden because he apparently is a Democrat.

 

[busybee01]

HA HA!!!

I guess that is your level of brainpower.

 

[Lastamender]

No it has not. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration policy. They are now denying that right to Biden because he apparently is a Democrat.

The president does make the immigration policy.

 

[busybee01]

Do you think the commies wouldn't have done the same if the rolls were reversed? What was maobamas favorite sayings, elections have consequences? Of course that saying only goes for the commies when elections go their way, otherwise it's time to change the rules.

.

That did happen in the case of Thomas' nomination to the SC. It could have been filibustered but Democrats agreed to a vote. Republicans changed the rules in 2015.

 

[busybee01]

The president does make the immigration policy.

Then someone should tell the SC. Biden is the President.

 

[busybee01]

You're a fucking liar, the court didn't allow Trump to abolish the illegal DACA program.

.

You are a fucking liar. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration law without Congressional approval. That is the only thing they blocked.

 

[busybee01]

Oh yes, he did.

There is no Biden rule. Only a McConnell rule.

 

[busybee01]

Democrats just have to cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat don't they.

That is what Republicans do.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No it has not. The SC allowed Trump to make up immigration policy. They are now denying that right to Biden because he apparently is a Democrat.

You've got that backwards, SCOTUS refused to allow Trump to rescind Obama's ILLEGAL Executive Order allowing ICE to ignore standing US immigration law that didn't allow any illegal aliens to remain in the USA after due process. If affirmed Trumps right to issue a legal restriction on immigration from certain SPECIFIC countries that were failed or hostile states where we didn't have the ability to vet immigrants.

 

[g5000]

What the Supreme Court did was unprecedented. John Roberts was right to say that a injunction should have been granted until the decision was reviewed by the courts.

John Roberts
The statutory scheme before the Court is not only unusual, but unprecedented.

Wrong.

Here's a case of an injunction being denied by the Supreme Court:

United States Supreme Court Tightens Standard for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctions in Federal Court, Rejects the “Sliding Scale” Standard

On November 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court, in Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., issued a 6-3 decision that tightens the standards for preliminary and…

www.akingump.com

On November 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court, in Winter, et al. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., issued a 6-3 decision that tightens the standards for preliminary and permanent injunctions in federal courts. The Court stated that the party seeking an injunction must demonstrate a probability, not merely a possibility, of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, rejecting the “sliding scale” standard used by the Ninth Circuit. The Court also held that, even if plaintiffs had demonstrated a probability of irreparable harm, such injury was outweighed by the public interest in the defendant Navy’s effective training of its sailors. The Court thus vacated the District Court’s grant of a preliminary injunction to the extent it was challenged by the Navy.

Here's another:

The Curious Incident of the Court That Denied Cert

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case on Arkansas’s regulation of abortion—a lack of action that may speak volumes.

www.theatlantic.com

Planned Parenthood sought an immediate restraining order blocking the law. Early in 2016, District Judge Kristine Baker granted a “preliminary injunction” blocking the law until a full trial could be held. The state immediately appealed, and in July 2017, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court. The appellate court, however, left the injunction in place while Planned Parenthood, now the loser, asked the Supreme Court to review its decision. That request is what the Court denied on Tuesday.

And another:

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit's approval of the injunction, holding that nothing in the Patent Act eliminated the traditional reliance on weighing the equitable factors considered in determining whether an injunction should issue.

 

[busybee01]

Just as soon as the abortionists find someone who has standing.

They already have standing. The court did not cite standing.