The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Jackson's dissent would also do away with laws regarding standing, advisory opin
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 29th, 2025 9:29 AM Author: Translucent regret It's hard to express how insane this thing is if you read it as an actual legal document as opposed to a snappy blog post
"What, really, is this system for protect- ing people’s rights if it amounts to this placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it?"
"Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception..." |
Date: June 29th, 2025 9:46 AM Author: big abusive range friendly grandma Does your opinion change when the context is the injunctions against Biden's vaccine mandates? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057738) |
 |
Date: June 29th, 2025 9:52 AM Author: Translucent regret Could you rephrase that as a semantically cogent comment or question? Feel free to use Google translate if necessary. Thanks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057756) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 9:58 AM Author: big abusive range friendly grandma If this were about the nationwide injunction for EO 14042, would you have the same analysis? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057778) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:02 AM Author: Translucent regret (justice Jackson, demanding I write an advisory opinion addressing a hypothetical case) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057788) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:05 AM Author: disgusting shimmering nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057795) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:15 AM Author: big abusive range friendly grandma nah mang, the lawyering's over on this one. But every justice involved would have written the opposite opinion on the Biden EO injunction. You're scholarshiping about a political decision in fancy legal dress (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057834) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:26 AM Author: Translucent regret If anything, the Biden case would have been a stronger argument against universal injunctions because the vast majority of federal employees were craving the vaccine, and were craving to put their boots on the neck of the minority vax resistors.
This is one reason why doctrines like standing and advisory opinion exist and why the remedy should be limited to the parties. "It's all fake and political" is just a lib cope |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:43 AM Author: big abusive range friendly grandma EO 14042 was not about providing the vaccine to anyone. Everyone who wanted the vaccine had already gotten it from Walgreens. EO 14042 was about making federal contractors with more than 100 employees fire all those minority vax resistors. The universal injunction saved their jobs, and was 100% justified.
Let me break it down for you: when President Newsom mandates forced national ass-play hour in 2030, random conservative judges in the judiciary are going to have a harder time stopping it.
The Justices had to do something about these national injunctions, which were getting out of hand -- partly due to recent executive overreach, starting with Obama -- but this was a lurch to the other side rather than a correction. |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 1:12 PM Author: Arousing Frum Dilemma Ape Neither of you read the actual SCOTUS opinion[s] on this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058205) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 12:10 PM Author: white resort if political decisions are a concern, maybe politics should be returned to the two political branches to decide
|
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:28 AM Author: histrionic hyperventilating native i legit thought it was an xo joke that she got the position back in the day (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057878) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:43 AM Author: jet cheese-eating set giraffe Here is what a normal lib professor says about Jackson's dissent.
"If one rejects judicial supremacy, Jackson's opinion is hard to read (speaking as someone who genuinely likes her writing). She accepts, without defending, that "the law" is whatever one district court says it is and the executive acts in a lawless manner by acting inconsistent with that judicial determination. So it begs multiple questions throughout in speaking of the law, and disobeying the law, and what things are blatantly unconstitutional, without explaining who decides any of this. Jackson offers two lines that are nonsensical. 1) The judicial power is especially great with respect to suits against the executive--except all constitutional litigation runs against the executive (or a non-executive officer performing an executive function). 2) Concern for "blatantly unconstitutional" laws. But constitutional invalidity is like pregnancy--you cannot have just a little bit of it. And she never explains when invalidity crosses that line into "blatancy." Ironically, she offers an example--an executive who orders incarceration of his political foes--that fails on its own procedural terms; that challenge would sound in habeas (if they seek release from custody) and not an EpY action for any sort of injunction, universal or otherwise." |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:44 AM Author: heady haunting indirect expression (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057914) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 10:45 AM Author: disgusting shimmering nowag (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49057916) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 12:08 PM Author: white resort (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058059) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 12:17 PM Author: Translucent regret last sentence is ljl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2...id.#49058095) |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 12:24 PM Author: soul-stirring circlehead i could imagine KBJ and her clerks getting worked up with TDS and instinctively reaching for a hypo where Trump starts jailing opponents.
interesting, though, that Dems were the ones who brought bullshit criminal charges against Trump. |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 12:41 PM Author: Cruel-hearted nubile pit Jackson was such a retarded pick. She’d be fine as the 5th Dem since nothing would matter except her vote. But the Dems now have to rely entirely on Kagan to pick off two votes.
Even the dumbest Sotomayor dissent doesn’t come close to this one. |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 1:05 PM Author: Drab Floppy Principal's Office Isn't this all pedantic procedural bullshit?
There's no more universal injunctions - instead there will just be a class action lawsuit and the injunction will apply to the entire class?
Her "opinion" is stupid but the majority opinion to me is the Supreme Court at its worst. They're holding is basically, "the court can't do this anymore" - but they don't really set forth a workable solution to the fact that presidents are passing these laws, and the Supreme Court isn't going to weigh in on if these greatly important topics are constituional or not for about 3 years.
I get that the Supreme Court doesn't want to make laws, but seems like they should fill in the gaps to this obvious problem. |
|
Date: June 29th, 2025 1:09 PM Author: Vibrant sadistic sex offender potus I agree
The conservative scotus members are cowards who want to do as little as possible to avert immediate disaster and nothing more. They just want to keep kicking the can indefinitely and make the onus of power and responsibility someone else's problem
These are people tasked with the highest responsibility of leading and directing a deteriorating civilization spiraling toward civil war. If you aren't up to the task, get the fuck off the bench and give your spot to someone who is |