You guys have a lot to say about Jackson’s opinion but what about Soto’s dis
| blue abode | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | Lascivious maniacal corner | 06/30/25 | | ultramarine shrine | 06/30/25 | | heady plaza | 06/30/25 | | Contagious garrison | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | Contagious garrison | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | Contagious garrison | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | nighttime ape azn | 06/30/25 | | heady plaza | 06/30/25 | | Contagious garrison | 06/30/25 | | Irate Location | 06/30/25 | | blue abode | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | ultramarine shrine | 06/30/25 | | amber therapy property | 06/30/25 | | High-end chapel voyeur | 06/30/25 | | Rough-skinned pit french chef | 06/30/25 | | aqua cuckold | 06/30/25 | | Zippy confused lodge juggernaut | 06/30/25 | | magenta halford | 06/30/25 | | flickering bisexual national | 06/30/25 | | blue abode | 06/30/25 | | flickering bisexual national | 06/30/25 | | Electric partner | 06/30/25 | | supple police squad state | 06/30/25 | | Soul-stirring disrespectful keepsake machete | 06/30/25 | | crimson diverse rigor | 06/30/25 | | aqua cuckold | 06/30/25 | | Contagious garrison | 06/30/25 | | Irradiated stage roast beef | 06/30/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 30th, 2025 10:34 AM Author: blue abode
Sotomayor’s dissent is clearly the best of the three opinions. Majority’s opinion is disingenuous. Court’s of equity historically had broad powers to fashion equitable remedies. Judiciary act of 1789 grants equitable powers to fed courts without limitations. Courts of equity in those days did not have any geographical limitations as far as injunctive relief. There was no bar against injunctions that would benefit others who were not plaintiffs to the action. As noted in Soto’s dissent, fed courts hearing tax cases for individual plaintiffs did grant universal injunctions to prohibit enforcement of the tax.
Majority is merely trying to limit Trump cases coming before the court because they can’t defend the merits of shit like an EO limiting birthright citizenship. Barrett is truly a disgusting disgrace of a human being.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744580&forum_id=2#49060137) |
 |
Date: June 30th, 2025 10:41 AM Author: Irate Location
There are literally powers that are denied to the courts even in equity because of Article III, like standing.
The majority never disputes that injunctions can run beyond geography.
The majority repeatedly acknowledges some injunctions can benefit non-parties like pollution.
Can you read?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744580&forum_id=2#49060155) |
Date: June 30th, 2025 11:04 AM Author: Soul-stirring disrespectful keepsake machete
Lmao at any lib criticizing 'faulty legal reasoning.'
No doubt you thought the penumbra nonsense in RvW was great fundamental law and that a fair reading of the 14th Am clearly protects gay marriage. But also the Constitution says absolutely nothing about gov infringing the right to bear arms.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744580&forum_id=2#49060233) |
|
|