Thread 508967110

Black fatigue in the Supreme Court

>>508967110 (OP)
Just say nigger
You're allowed to

>>508967110 (OP)
Kagan is the only serious writer in the liberal wing. Sotomayor and Jackson are just awful.

>>508967110 (OP)
WHITE RESERVATIONS IN USA NOW! CASINOS TOO.

>>508967324
DEI hires always are

>>508967324
OH NO LEFTOID XISTERS
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THE SMART ONES

THOUGHT JUMANJI JUST COULDNT DEFINE A WOMEN DUE TO LEFTOID POLITICS
MAYBE SHE DOESNT ACTUALLY KNOW

>>508967110 (OP)
Chat summarize this jewspeak in plain english.

>>508967110 (OP)
Justice Thomas is by far the best justice on the court.

>>508967848
dat nigger bitch be wilin n shit

>>508967110 (OP)
this shit is just gonna get worse
imagine what this shit will look like just 30 years from now
you have to admit it's pretty fucking amazing that progressives have managed to DEIfy the fucking Supreme Court with a bitch that doesn't even understand her role

>>508968253
Soon if not already they're going to use AI but pretend it's their writing, then after a while they'll drop the pretense and just use AI for everything.

>Opinion of the Court
>Absolutely, I can write an "opinon of the cort" for you. Here it is, in a zesti qeen style as you requested.

>>508967913
ALITO CARRIES THE TORCH FROM SCALIA
BIASED TO THE BASED SIDE

>>508967110 (OP)
It's okay to say nigger, faggot

It's Idiocracy playing out IRL.

>>508967110 (OP)
I am not going to take a Irish Supreme Court seriously either. Until Jews and Irish are excluded from being judges we can't have a real judicial system. Gorsuch is literally the only mostly "white" member of the court, and even he is part potato nigger and holds papist beliefs.

>>508967848
This was largely a question about the extent of remedies federal courts can issue. There are three types of remedies 1) legal remedies where the court orders the defendant to pay money damages, 2) equitable remedies where the court orders the party to do or not do something, and 3) declaratory judgment where the judge offers a legal opinion. These remedies have different sources. Legal remedies arose from the English Medieval common law tradition, while equitable remedies arose from English Courts of Chancery. Shortly after the founding, Congress empowered federal judges with both common law and equitable jurisdiction.

The Court was examining whether equitable power included the the ability to issue universal injunctions, essentially the ability to bind parties outside the litigation. The majority found there was no historical tradition of courts exercising that power, beyond analogs for the class action lawsuit. Therefore, courts cannot issue injunctions beyond what is necessary to afford relief to the parties at issue.

Hackson, made essentially a political argument. Ignoring these legal restrictions on the federal judiciary, she would still hold courts have this power to counter what she views as an imperial executive. The lines you read were the majority saying, Jackson's argument has no legal merit.

>>508967110 (OP)
Barrett absolutely body slammed her.

>>508969035

The US constitution does not say which branch can override another. If you read FDR's inaugural speech last few paragraphs, he makes this exact claim. The US constitution leaves unsaid and ambiguous. FDR used it to justify his imperial Executive status.

>>508969359
That's not germane. Congress sets the bounds of the federal courts jurisdiction subject to constitutional limits. The judiciary cannot extend beyond that.

>>508969359
It doesn't need to say which branch can override another. Might > right always, and the Executive branch has control of the military. I don't know why anyone listens to the judicial branch since they have no enforcement of their own.

>>508967110 (OP)
>If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, ... compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative.
Really? How come no one said this when FDR unilaterally declared war on Germany and all of the Axis by issuing the 9/11 shoot-on-sight order against the Axis navy, a power that he didn't possess as a president? They had a couple of months to slap the Executive back into submission and to stop him from dictatorially threatening the lives of his citizens without any external threat warranting such a disproportionate response. Neither the congress nor the SCOTUS did anything about it. And the worst part is that 99% of people reading this post will have no idea that this even happened, even though this was actually worse than PH by a mile because it declared an undeclared war against an entire alliance.

What I'm trying to say is that constitutionalism should be the very first thing that any dissident should strive to discredit. Absolutely never EVER promote the supreme court of whatever government. They're never going to side with you and they're never going to stop the judaification of your society. Never promote any constitution. Never utter the phrase law & order. All of these are the DNA of secular judaism that first overthrew the monarchies and then overthrew the nation itself, under the false promises of the Enlightenment. They are set up to block every form of dissent against the ZOG and to then stay down whenever the ZOG goes for its routine world tour.

>>508967110 (OP)
Jackson is actually right about this, but is such a fucking nigger nobody bought it.

Marburg vs. Madison's conclusion that the President can break the law without a civil remedy is wrong and always was wrong.

But ultimately I'm glad this turned out the way it did.

>>508969780

Look, FDR straight up admitted in his 1933 inaugural speech that the Constitution doesn't spell out which branch gets to override the others during emergencies. He literally said the "normal balance of Executive and legislative authority" might need "temporary departure" for "unprecedented demand." The Constitution sets up three branches but gives zero guidance on who wins when they clash. FDR exploited this gap to justify his "broad Executive power to wage war against the emergency" - basically claiming wartime powers during the Depression. The founders left it vague on purpose because they knew rigid separation would be impractical. Madison even wrote about branches needing "constitutional control" over each other. FDR's court-packing scheme and New Deal programs proved this ambiguity was real and exploitable.

Article III explicitly says Congress can "ordain and establish" inferior courts and that Supreme Court jurisdiction comes "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Congress isn't overstepping - they're doing exactly what the text authorizes. There's a difference between controlling what cases courts hear versus how they decide them. Congress gets the first part, courts keep the second. It's not broken separation of powers, it's separation of powers working correctly. The founders wanted branches checking each other, and voters can punish Congress if they go too far with jurisdiction stripping. This is basic constitutional design.

Bottom line: Constitution is deliberately ambiguous on inter-branch conflicts but crystal clear on congressional jurisdiction control.

>>508968867
>The Court was examining whether equitable power included the the ability to issue universal injunctions, essentially the ability to bind parties outside the litigation. The majority found there was no historical tradition of courts exercising that power[.]
Which is wrong, of course. The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause necessarily means that if a federal court grants equitable relief to a party before the court, it can also grant relief to similarly situated parties. That's the fundamental underpinning of non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel and other non-mutual issue and claim preclusion doctrines.

But I'm glad the nigger lost, even though she was right.

>>508970158
If the usual federal agencies like the Marshals or FBI refuse to enforce a court order, the court isn’t powerless. Judges can use the All Writs Act to bring in other law enforcement, even state cops if needed. There’s also Rule 70, which lets the court appoint random people or officials to get the job done at the expense of whoever not complying. On top of that, courts have their own authority to make sure their orders are followed, so they can get creative and pick whoever they need to enforce stuff. Basically, the courts have backup plans if the usual guys bail.

>>508970808
The federal judiciary cannot conscript state cops but otherwise that's correct. SCOTUS has a marshal (with the powers of a common law shire-reeve) for this very purpose.

>>508967302

Nigger

>>508970747
I don't see how that wins the argument. The place for a party to assert a preclusion claim is in their own suit. Nobody is saying the law isn't binding, but parties assert their claims in suits. This idea the judiciary rules by injunction and the threat of contempt is a strange one.

>>508967663
Not a bad idea. White only enclaves where we can safely raise and educate our children away from the Mongrel Hordes.

>>508970517
That wasn’t what Marbury v. Madison was about nor was that even her argument. Marbury v. Madison is about the restraints placed on the Judiciary via the Judiciary Act of 1789. Not that the Executive is beyond reproach; rather the Judiciary isn’t.

Jackson either doesn’t know or understand it is up to Congress to resolve the loopholes. Considering you don’t seem to understand that either, yet defend her argument, you might be the biggest nigger here.

>>508971224
Equal protection doesn't just apply to whoever files a lawsuit.

If Georgia passes a law that says you can't say "I love Jesus" in public, and someone sues a gets a DJ that the law is unconstitutional, can the cops continue to arrest people who say "I love Jesus" who weren't named plaintiffs in the suit?

Equal protection obviously REQUIRES the answer to be no. If one person gets a law declare unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional as to everybody.

American courts have applied this obvious principle of equal protection inconsistently, giving rise to such retarded outcomes as SCOTUS allowing unresolved splits between federal circuit courts of appeal (and state courts of last resort).

But the outcome plainly required by equal protection is this: if a law is unconstutional or void for some other reason, and someone sues and gets a declaration to that effect by a court, then every single human being in America doesn't have to pay another $400 for a fed court filing fee and $25,000 for a lawyer to get an identical ruling. That's fundamental equal protection, which court (and lawyers) have messed up for two+ centuries.

>>508971687
This, people ignore the political context behind Marbury. Marshall knew the executive was never going do give Maybury his commission. So he wrote an opinion that (in a somewhat tortured reading of both statute and Constitution) said he couldn't issue the writ even though Congress said he could because the Constitution said he couldn't. The executive applauded the outcome without engaging with the reasoning, and courts have had the power of judicial review ever since.

>>508971687
>Marbury v. Madison is about the restraints placed on the Judiciary via the Judiciary Act of 1789
That's not even close to being ALL that Marbury v. Madison is about, but of course you know that.

>>508967324
>Kagan is the only serious writer in the liberal wing
She is a Jew so she is at least adequately intelligent the others are total AA hires.

convince me the SC is real and not just some play acting by the 9 with a huge apparatus behind it doing everything important.

>>508967324
Sotomayor is a lot smarter than all the other chicks. Her opinions are dogshit though.

>>508967110 (OP)
yfw future generations will soon be able to note the first appearance of emojis in Supreme court opinions .

>>508972042
And that was the wrong outcome. Some court in America, either a federal court or a state court sitting in a federal question case where Congress hasn't given jurisdiction to the federal courts, has the authority to craft a remedy for illegal acts by the President, by equitable relief (writs or otherwise). Period.

All the various nonjusticiability doctrines invented by federal courts over the decades are nonsense. I don't care because my side won this case, and the nigger is an unpersuasive retard, but her opinion is 100% correct. Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided on those points.

>>508971975
That's a complete misread of equal protection. If the government arrests party A for reasons found to be illegal, all equal protection requires is that party B have the same law applied when he says his arrest was illegal. The idea the courts go out and enjoin the government from enforcing unconstitutional laws is a complete misread of how courts work. Once it's found unconstitutional the law is simply void. There's no longer a practice to enjoin.

The liberal wing of the Court has been in steady decline since its heyday in mid-century. Since the Nixon years the major opinions have mostly all been written by the conservative wing of the Court, the liberal justices being subpar affirmative action picks. Even Saint Ruthie contributed very little of importance and rarely wrote opinions.

>>508972395
>Once it's found unconstitutional the law is simply void. There's no longer a practice to enjoin.
So what happens when the Fourth Circuit finds Federal Law X unconstitutional but then the Fifth Circuit finds Federal Law X constitutional, and SCOTUS doesn't grant cert.

Is Federal Law X void for everybody?

>>508967110 (OP)
"Unecessary" lol. We now have basic spelling errors and poor proofreading in SCOTUS opinions? The US truly has fallen.

>>508972754
SCOTUS puts opinions out in advance sheets prior to final publication in the U.S. Reports for this very purpose.

looking forward to the presidential executive order confiscating guns during the AOC presidency.

>>508972723
No, the law is applied differently in those circuits. It happens every single day. You may not like it but that's how it works. It also isn't in violation of the imagined equal protection clause of the fifth amendment because that doesn't exist. You're running with a maximalist reading of Bolling v. Sharpe that doesn't have those legs.

>>508970808
Lol. Who would win, the US military with all its equipment and logistics, or some random people off the street who answered the Court's call? You retard.

>>508972928
this. i think conservacucks don't understand the ramifications of what Amy "i have a nigger child" Barett is saying

Jackson is correct only because giving more power to the executive is against the spirit of the seperation of powers. Imperial executive is a British constitutional concept - ie, the whole reason mutts fought the revolutionary war

>>508967324
>Jackson
Who the fuck is that? Shit I switched timelines again. This doesn't sound good.

>>508971218
Yeah I'm sure they can defeat the US military, dipshit.
Look, the three branches of government thing is cute and it was fun to try but it's retarded. Might makes right always. It is a law of the universe. Sooner or later whoever has the might will decide they don't want to listen to anyone else. There's a reason countries end up with dictatorships / monarchies after a while, and it's because it's natural. They don't last because dictators grow old and die, that's it.

>>508972864
So they can't be arsed to proof their own drafts? Id be embarrassed.

>>508973048
"No, the law is applied differently in those circuits. It happens every single day. You may not like it but that's how it works. It also isn't in violation of the imagined equal protection clause of the fifth amendment because that doesn't exist."
Let's keep playing our socratic game.

Does the Constitution allow the Executive to declare that he will enforce Federal Law X in the Fourth Circuit but not in the Fifth Circuit?

If your answer is no, what provision of the Constitution does that violate?

>>508969359
>The US constitution does not say which branch can override another.
Sure it does. If the president oversteps, the constitution says the congress can impeach him. If they don't, then that's 2 branches checking the third. Working as intended.

>>508973379
I'm old enough to have been on law review before it was a DEI affair. We actually can proof and spade formal legal documents.

The younger ones can't. Law review ceased to be top talent. Now it's just niggers, women, and fags.

>>508973185
The only Court cannot be the force for political taming of the executive. That has to be Congress. This ruling will actually help fix this. Instead of grandstanding a fight between the executive and judiciary, Congress will be forced to take more accountability for national policy.

>>508970517
Doesn't the President have legal immunity? Thus, can't the President just go around breaking the law with no consequences?

The judicial branch literally has no say in what the president does. They are not relevant. The check on the president is congress, which can impeach him. If they choose not to, then the president can do whatever he wants. If the judicial mattered in this process, they'd have a constitutional means to enforce their spergings. They do not.

>>508973454
What if the President doesn't overstep and Congress impeaches purely to get rid of the President? Where are the checks and balances on Congress?

>>508973569
>Thus, can't the President just go around breaking the law with no consequences?
The president can do whatever he wants until congress impeaches him. The check on the president is congress. If congress fails to impeach him, then the president can keep doing whatever he wants. That's working as intended, constitutionally.

>>508973569
Only for official duties, which is basically a circular argument saying if he's authorized to do it by the constitution he's immune from criminal prosecution.

>>508973660
>What if the President doesn't overstep and Congress impeaches purely to get rid of the President? Where are the checks and balances on Congress?
The people, who then can vote out such corrupt representatives. If the people refuse, then it's working as intended. The people deserve such a country at that point, as pointed out by the founders.

>>508972362
So your issue is with the constitution itself and not Executive overreach? Marbury v. Madison wasn’t incorrect in the sense Congress is fully responsible and capable enough to write laws that do not violate the Constitution. If they want to vest authority in Article III courts to grant nationwide injunctions, why not vest the authority? Instead of holding Congress to task and forcing them to properly legislate, you want to vacate Marbury v. Madison to allow them completely circumvent the Constitution?

>>508973560
>The only Court cannot be the force for political taming of the executive.
No one (directly) asked Article III courts to "politically tame" the Executive. They asked Article III courts to rule on whether the Executive's actions were lawful, and for preliminary relief plainly authorized by the All Writs Act to preserve the status quo pending litigation and issuance of final judgment.

Obviously the left wants the courts to politically restrain Trump and many crooked federal judges went along with that, but the lawful remedy is for SCOTUS to say they were wrong, not that they messed up a procedural step that they didn't actually mess up.

>>508972928
>looking forward to the presidential executive order confiscating guns during the AOC presidency
Pretty much everyone is.

>>508967110 (OP)
My mom was in tears after hearing this decision saying it would lead to a fascist dictatorship and the supreme Court wants it to happen.

But in reality if the Conservative justices had simply agreed with this retarded negress that would have enabled any conservative federal judge in the nation to block every single future Democrat president from doing anything ever and no matter how much other Democrat judges tried to fight it the majority conservative Supreme Court would have been able to uphold blocking every single thing a Democrat president tries to do.

I know Democrats are genuinely insane, basically no different from scientologists but I'm curious how they rectify these facts. I think it would be funny watching them sputter and spin their wheels trying to think of how a Supreme court majority that supports fascism would go against a ruling that would enable any federal judge in the nation the ability to stop anything future Democrat presidents try to do

>>508973185
>Imagine if sides were reversed!!!!!
Conservatives would be lined up against the wall and their last words would be "wow, look at those double standards."

>>508973389
That's not the question though. The president has no say in this. You're conflating an act by the president with interpretations by the judiciary. The president can't enforce the law separately because that would violate his duty to "faithfully" execute them

>>508972928
SCOTUS would hear that case immediately. Beyond that, the Democrats would lose all political capital they ever had. It’s almost like no one understands how any of this works.

>>508973715
Please answer my question here: >>508973389


Stop engaging the retards. It's beneath you. I'm an actual lawyer, and maybe you are too. Prove your mettle against me if you can.

>>508973560
>Congress will be forced to take more accountability for national policy.
how did that work for the past 100 years, retard?

>>508972754
Pedantry is a hallmark of the low-iq.

>>508973801
Nothing in the Court's ruling will upset that. The Court is saying you can't go out and bind national policy-making when a lesser remedy will do. That's long standing doctrine for judges to resolve the dispute in front of them. This idea the necessary remedy is a universal injunction is because these suits are political not legal acts. Further there is already a procedure to answer questions for similarly situated parties too large for joinder. The Court is merely ending abuse of procedure.

>>508968769
post nose you transparent inbred

>>508974038
I did.>>508973990

>>508973990
So the Judiciary has no duty to faithfully apply Federal Law X the same across the entire United States, but the Executive does?

Does that make sense to you? Turn off the law school indoctrination and use your brain. Would James Madison have approved of federal courts saying that an AR-15 ban is constitutional in California but not in South Carolina?

>>508970158
Yeah, but the courts have the ability to give the illusion of legitimacy to the actions of the executive and legislative branches. They're losing that now that federal judges and even some on the supreme court have issued absolute batshit rulings and opinions that, even to the average american, are nothing more than partisan propoganda.

>>508974279
>Nothing in the Court's ruling will upset that. The Court is saying you can't go out and bind national policy-making when a lesser remedy will do.
But a lesser remedy won't do.

How many people in the United States are capable of paying a $400 filing fee for a federal complaint and either litigating it themselves pro se or paying a lawyer anywhere from $25,000 to $500,000 to litigate the case to completion?

Are those people just fucked? Does the Constitution only protect people who can afford to file a federal lawsuit and hire a lawyer, or litigate it themselves competently (which basically requires them to be a lawyer)?

>>508974387
We have a Supreme Court, retard. You're fucking cracking up about circuit splits. Yes, Madison would be fine if the judiciary was following congressionally outlined process for determining the ultimate constitutionality. Beyond that you're alternative process is retarded. In your view one district court issues and injunction and that freezes the law for everyone. Circuit splits are necessary for resolving close questions of law.

>>508974645
>Does the Constitution only protect people who can afford to file a federal lawsuit and hire a lawyer
Essentially, yes.

>>508967110 (OP)
God! Law is SO fucking gay! Laws are for people who need them.

>>508974645
What right are they losing? How can I possibly comment on the merits of suits that don't exist? Why dont these people and their interests get congress to change the law?

>>508967324
Yeah, but different degrees of awful. Jackson makes Sotomayor look like Scalia. She’s actually retarded.

>>508974663
>Beyond that you're alternative process is retarded.
*your

Guess you didn't make law review. I did. And I've actually won a case in SCOTUS.

Substantive reply to follow.

>>508972928
>looking forward to the presidential executive order confiscating guns during the AOC presidency.
That woman's presidential candidacy will go about the same as Kamala Harris in 2020 where she gave up while it was still calendar year 2019.

>>508967110 (OP)
Who wrote this?

I've legit never heard of this jackson woman before today. God damn timeline shifts are weird as fuck.

>>508974387
are you just pretending states rights don't exist or what? the federal circuit court has absolutely no say in how a state governs itself unless it
directly violates the constitution and only happens after the state supreme court kicks the case up to the district courts

>So the Judiciary has no duty to faithfully apply Federal Law X the same across the entire United States, but the Executive does?
it's literally not the judicial branch's job, where the fuck did you get your degree, shit head?

>>508972723
That's exactly it. If one district court finds a particular law invalid then it is invalid in that district but it can be valid in any other district unless the Supreme Court decides on it.

>>508967110 (OP)
Niggers are just dumb and extremely corrupt , it’s why they are the perfect tools of the Jew.
When jews are gone everything will be good.

>>508974387
The judicial power provided by Article III extends only to the resolution of cases brought by parties that are before the court. A random district judge in South Carolina doesn’t have the authority to declare policy for the entire country unless one of the parties to the case is a nationwide class.

>>508967302

>>>/wsg/5910887

>>508967110 (OP)
that nigger woman was installed by a fraudulent president (biden), literally by satan himself. should be removed simpley because nigger and also woman. its like two very solid reasons to kick the cunt out

>>508974878
Barett authored the opinion with the rest of the conservative wing joining.

>>508975064
>I FEEL LIKE SAYING NIGGER TONIGHT

>>508974663
>We have a Supreme Court, retard. You're fucking cracking up about circuit splits.
How many types of cases go to the Supreme Court automatically either in the original jurisdiction or as an appeal as of right, as opposed to a discretionary cert grant?

If SCOTUS accepted every single case that produced a circuit split (including state COLRs), things would be different. But they don't.

>Yes, Madison would be fine if the judiciary was following congressionally outlined process for determining the ultimate constitutionality.

There is no way Madison would approve of a system where federal law is not uniform throughout the country. You're either lying or stupid to make this claim.

>Beyond that you're alternative process is retarded. In your view one district court issues and injunction and that freezes the law for everyone. Circuit splits are necessary for resolving close questions of law.

In my view, district courts can issue whatever injunctions they believe are appropriate, and can extend relief to nonparties in appropriate cases per the All Writs Act and as necessary to ensure that all citizens, and not merely the named plaintiffs, are afforded equal protection of the laws.

Whenever a district court does that, there should be immediate review AS OF RIGHT by the circuit court, as is the standard practice, and by SCOTUS, which currently requires a cert grant.

SCOTUS needs to get off its ass and resolve all legal questions of national import as soon as possible. That procedure is required by equal protection, which is a fundamental component not just of the Fifth Amendment but the original unamended Constitution.

A federal statute is not a law if it only applies in part of the country. That's not what the word "law" means.

In addition, the Federal courts may use the US Marshals to enforce their rulings however this requires the president to order them to do so and he may withhold permission which makes the court's ruling unenforceable.

>>508967324
Kagen 120 IQ
Sotomayor 85 IQ
Jackson 70 IQ
They were tested before joining the court, Sotomayor and Jackson’s IQ results have been carefully hidden. You can’t hide their decisions or comments on cases.

>>508975049
>The judicial power provided by Article III extends only to the resolution of cases brought by parties that are before the court.
The Constitution doesn't say that. You (and a number of federal judges) just made that up.

>>508975316
Thurgood Marshall was also dumb as a box of rocks, he hardly ever wrote opinions and especially in his later years did the bare minimum of work. Absolute AA hire.

>>508975402
It literally says that. I’m sorry that you can’t read.

>>508974429
>the courts have the ability to give the illusion of legitimacy to the actions of the executive and legislative branches
Yeah

>>508969035
She's straight up saying here that Jackson isn't using anything legal to back up her opinion and that it's just a bunch of noise. Seriously embarassing, like me being hired to present legal arguments and I pull out a comic book

>>508974978
>That's exactly it. If one district court finds a particular law invalid then it is invalid in that district but it can be valid in any other district unless the Supreme Court decides on it.
And that is an obvious equal protection violation.

>>508975311
Who are you talking to ?

>>508974919
>are you just pretending states rights don't exist or what? the federal circuit court has absolutely no say in how a state governs itself unless it
>directly violates the constitution and only happens after the state supreme court kicks the case up to the district courts
This is laughably wrong. State Supreme courts don't "kick cases" to federal district courts. Federal district courts sometimes certify issues of state law to state supreme courts in diversity cases but that's it.

>>508969035
LMAO the fact that Jacksons argument had fucking cringe lereddit slang in it, including
>...wait for it...
>- Full Stop.
Just makes this burn even better. Just scathing and her defense just comes across as juvenile

>>508975440
Cite the provision of the Constitution that says a federal court may only grant relief to a named plaintiff and cannot issue rulings that affect other persons who are not parties to the case.

>>508969035
>whataboutism as a SCOTUS argument

In all fairness the Supreme Court since the early days has had many useless, dimwitted justices who were appointed as space filler to give a reliable vote to the party of the president who appointed them. Sotomayor and Brown are hardly exceptional in that regard.

>>508975301
If you want that process ask congress. That's not the system they made. We have 94 districts and 13 circuits for a reason. Moreover you're ignoring the ways universal injunctions fuel the Court's shadow docket. Maybe now it will have more time to resolve circuit splits that you are so upset about. Your system resembles more of a Constitutional review where any act by the federal government is essentially held in abeyance until the courts have ruled on it. That's not the system we have and certainly not Constitutionally requried.

>>508973263
room temperature IQ nigger woman

>>508975709
100% correct.

Kagan is the brains of the left on SCOTUS right now.

>>508975693
I'm not sure you understand what whataboutism actually means.

>>508975477
What protected class is harmed by that? Make that claim.

>>508975693
that's not "whataboutism" at all, you retarded fucking nigger

what does italicized 'ibid' mean?

>>508972928
>democrats ever winning a national election again
pure delusion lmao

>>508967110 (OP)
>Black fatigue
the most based judge is black

Ever heard of Gabriel Duvall, Lucius Lamar, or Charles Whittaker? Probably not and those justices are forgotten for a reason (Whittaker literally resigned because he admitted the job was too much for him).

>>508973560
>Congress will be forced to take more accountability
Lol. Lmao even

>>508975565
>I'm going to split hairs about common phraseology
post kippa

>>508975908
and he has more nigger fatigue than the rest of them combined

>>508972928
Shall not be infringed

>>508975838
It's a citation. American legal writing uses in citations sentences or clauses. Ibid is Latin for in the same place. It directs the reader to the previous cite as support for the sentence's provision.

>>508975658
The supreme court interprets the constitution through judicial review ( at least it’s supposed to ) none of the leftist on the court believe in or follow the constitution. The centrist on the court are all constitutionalists.

>>508975741
It’s tragic

>>508975717
>If you want that process ask congress. That's not the system they made.
Does Congress have the constitutional authority to create a system where Federal Law X is a law in parts of the United States but not a law in others? (Hint: no.)

>We have 94 districts and 13 circuits for a reason.
Congress never authorized the federal courts to issue inconsistent rulings, creating a system where various federal laws apply in part of the country but not others. SCOTUS created that system because Congress wasn't smart enough to anticipate the laziness of SCOTUS justices.

>Moreover you're ignoring the ways universal injunctions fuel the Court's shadow docket.
I know exactly how the shadow docket works. I've dealt with shadow docket cases multiple times. Every time I wanted SCOTUS to decline to rule, and they did.

>Maybe now it will have more time to resolve circuit splits that you are so upset about.
I'm not "upset" about circuit splits. I'm upset about a system that creates a world where the U.S. Code has different requirements for Person A in Alabama than Person B in California. That renders the U.S. Code less than a code of laws. Nothing is a "law" if it doesn't apply to everybody in the jurisdiction.

>Your system resembles more of a Constitutional review where any act by the federal government is essentially held in abeyance until the courts have ruled on it. That's not the system we have and certainly not Constitutionally requried.
I said no such thing. What I said was that universal injunctions are allowed by the Constitution because to not allow them would create an equal protection violation. And I am 100% correct.

I ultimately don't care, since I want my side to win even if the court rulings it needs to win are wrong. But I'm not going to pretend Jackson was wrong. She's just a dumb nigger who couldn't persuade anybody, and her opponents (esp. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett) only care about making their lives easier by limiting what's on SCOTUS' docket.

>>508975908
Clarence Thomas hates niggers.

>>508975802
Equal protection isn't just about "protected classes," retard.

If a cop doesn't write speeding tickets to his buddies but does write them to other people, that's an equal protection violation, even though "people who aren't friends with a cop" is not a protected class.

Are you a 2L going to 3L this fall?? You've got just the right combo of arrogance and ignorance to a be a 2L summer.

>>508976103
they follow RBG's school of "the Constitution can be re-interpreted to sync with the currently hot social justice cause."

>>508970747
Even if that's true, would it not end with the (district) court's jurisdiction?

>>508975838
"Ibid" is what people pretending to be lawyers use in place of "Id." "Id." means "I'm citing the same thing I most recently cited before this."

>>508976070
Nobody under 70 uses "ibid" lol. It's "Id." now, cosplayer.

>>508975838
Shorthand for ibidem (same source). Typical in certain branches of science as op. Cit. is in others. If you know your shit you can detect schooling with it.

>>508976666
>I'm a fucking retard
thanks for announcing it for us

>>508976654
>Even if that's true, would it not end with the (district) court's jurisdiction?
Not necessarily. American courts have made a hideous hodgepodge of rules trying to answer that question. Sometimes a ruling has application outside the territorial jurisdiction of that court, sometimes it doesn't. It is a complete mess.

>>508976366
Please outline an equal protection violation from a circuit splits. I'm really struggling to see where that comes in. You have Bolling that reverse incorporates the 14A against the federal government, but I'm still struggling to see where the 14th amendment's language requires jurisdictional eqaulity in the laws. If anything it militates in the opposite direcrions, sinceit's covering states that are obviously going to have different laws. Thus, nothing indicates to me that the 5th amendment requires jurisdictional uniformity in the interpetation or application of federal law. Besides who has standing to make that claim and what their theory of harm is. What protected class is harmed when the law is different in Idaho vs. California. Even assuming we get to strict scrutiny, the obvious answer is that the government has an overriding interest in administering its laws in the way congress deems most effective.

>>508976783
Please show me an "ibid" citation in a legal filing or judicial ruling written by someone under 70. Law review articles don't count. Only things produced by working lawyers or working judges.

>>508967302
Nigga

>Nintendo of America had originally enacted an exclusivity clause for game publishers which forbade them to release video games for any non-Nintendo consoles for 5 years. This was invalidated in 1990 by a US District judge in Washington who ruled that Nintendo violated antitrust statutes.[9]
Now clearly that ruling was considered to apply nationwide so...

>>508967110 (OP)
I hope her ass gets impeached.
I don't like the other two turbolib justices either, but in their dissent of the majority, even they're calling out KBJ as the utter retard that she is.

But she's a black woman in favor of taking power away from the president, so liberals will defend her as if she's marx himself, and neocons are too afraid of being called racist or sexist to do anything.

>>508976883
>Please show me an "ibid" citation in a legal filing or judicial ruling written by someone under 70.
There's one in the OP you moronic fucking faggot.

>>508977022
Be that as it may the end result would have still been the USSC siding with Trump and ruling that the deportations could continue.

>>508976514
Imagine accusing someone else of being a 2L when you're conflating a selective enforcement claim with disparate interpretations of the law. I don't see how one informs the other. If the government is selectively enforcing the law as it exists in that jurisdiction against parties that's much different than the applicable law being different.

>>508976666
>Nobody under 70 uses "ibid" lol. It's "Id." now, cosplayer.

*Faganon who took Latin raises eyebrow*

>>508975693
Whataboutism is not a fallacy it is a conversation control tactic invented by the KGB

>>508976865
>Please outline an equal protection violation from a circuit splits. I'm really struggling to see where that comes in.
Let's say the Ninth Circuit rules the Internal Revenue Code unconstitutional in toto, while all the other circuits rule that the Internal Revenue Code is constitutional. SCOTUS denies cert.

Now people in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands don't have to pay federal income taxes but everybody else does.

Is that a Fifth Amendment ghost equal protection clause violation? Does it violate the fundamental structure of the unamended Constitution?

Don't say "but that would never happen" because it has happened, just on more arcane issues than paying taxes.

>>508977225
I'm talking about legal writing only. Ibid still shows up elsewhere, and in stuff written by old lawyers and judges, but all of us under 70 use "Id."

>>508976975
wtf I always knew Nintendo controlled our government!

>>508977295
You already got BTFO. Shut the fuck up and go kill yourself, you retarded fucking faggot.

>>508967324
Sotomayor was more based than Scalia on Hollingsworth v. Perry

>>508977209
Your post indicated plainly that you thing equal protection only applies to "protected classes." That's plainly wrong, and I cited an example to prove it.

And you're either a law student, a failed law student, or a lawyer who has been totally indoctrinated by law school to the point that you don't even understand what the word "equal" means.

>>508977387
Still waiting on you to show me a legal filing or court order using "Ibid" instead of "Id." that was produced by someone under 70. Hint: you can't.

>>508976666
>Nobody under 70 uses "ibid" lol. It's "Id." now, cosplayer.
I was born in '84 and when I went to university I was taught to use ibid. I can't believe it has fallen out of use. Maybe law is different than other academic fields but i have my doubts.

>>508967324
>Kagan
Probably because she was never a judge before Obama made his lawyer a supreme court justice, she knows how to play the game.

>>508967913
Barrett wrote that opinion

>>508977246
I just said I dont know how that is a fifth amendment violation. Your response was basically asking me to answer that question for you, indicating to me you don't know how it is a violation either.

Again, it just seems like you don't like circuit splits. Maybe you have a policy point, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional. You're taking an extremely broad reading of the fifth amendment then heaping an implausible hypothetical on top of it to create the perfect case. Even then, you haven't explained how the fifth amendment operates.

>>508977635
>Maybe law is different than other academic fields but i have my doubts.
Well, it is. We use something called a "Bluebook." It says "Id." instead of "Ibid."

>>508976366
Most interesting thead on /pol/ right now. Thanks lawfag anons for treating us to this debate. Back to my popcorn.

>>508976445
Thomas' opinion is it's a mistake for blacks to try and jew the courts to force shit and instead should become successful on their own or else they will never receive respect and be stuck in a slavery mindet forever. That's basically the gist of all his rulings pointing out individual rights and not group rights

Thomas also differs from Alito in that Thomas hates cases that hinge on some court procedural error like if you forgot to tick some box your appeal is denied, he always reverses those like he recently did in some Texas case where a spic inmate killed some other inmate and was told he couldn't appeal his death sentence because the prison locked him down for too long so he missed some arbitrary filing date.

>>508968253
One way or another it's going to be over in thirty years.

>>508975621
Jackson' opinion was almost certainly written by some clerk who is also almost certainly a black woman.

>>508977517
But the entire gist of your argument is that there's some equal protection violation across classes, hence why I asked about which clases are violated. Then you backpeddled to selective prosecution as if that's suddenly relevant.

But really, you're just deflecting and creating strawman. At bottom you have repeatedly failed to answer how the fifth amendment requires uniform interpretations of the law across judicial circuits and such uniformity is properly enforced by universal injunction rather than the congressionally mandated appeals process.

>>508977696
>I just said I dont know how that is a fifth amendment violation. Your response was basically asking me to answer that question for you, indicating to me you don't know how it is a violation either.
Nope, I'm asking you to tell me whether or not you think the Constitution permits a situation where people in New York and Florida have to pay federal taxes but people in California and Hawaii don't.

Just answer that question. Maybe you think the Constitution does allow that, which is plainly wrong, but if that's your position, say so.

>>508975621
Can you post it?

>>508977988
I've said nothing about "classes." What I've said is that an equal protection violation occurs when the Fifth Circuit says that Federal Law X is unconstitutional and void, while the Seventh Circuit says that Federal Law X is enforceable and valid, and SCOTUS refuses to cure the split. That has nothing to do with "protected classes." It has to do with whether Americans are equally protected by the same laws, and in my hypothetical (which often happens) they are not.

>>508978044
The constitutional process would be for the Supreme Court to resolve an open question of unsettled law. I don't think the mechanism is an equal protection claim in district court.

>>508978044
>knock and enter warrant service
>evidence taken in 'good faith without warrant

>>508978369
>The constitutional process would be for the Supreme Court to resolve an open question of unsettled law.
So if the Supreme Court denies cert, is that a constitutional violation?

>>508978242
So the equal protection claim is against SCOUTS? So now we have district judges entertaining claims again the Supreme court? That's retarded.

>>508974800
appeals to authority/prestige don't really matter here. just make your argument bro.

>>508978369
What is the remedy if SCOTUS will not hear such a case? Creating a confederacy of Federal court districts with different rules? The system cannot sustain this level of information entropy. There has to be a better way.

>>508978461
No, it's just refusing to resolve the split which it's within its Ariticle III prerogative. If the issue is bad enough political pressure will fix the issue and that's why there's not really a constitutional process in place, because it's not necessary.

>>508977565
it's
literally
in
the
OP
you
retarded
fucking
nigger

>>508978584
>appeals to authority/prestige don't really matter here. just make your argument bro.
I didn't make an appeal to authority. I merely insulted an opponent.

>>508978614
>states apply to Congress for resolution
IANAL

>>508978614
But that's predicated on SCOTUS basically not doing its job, which is why the constitution has processes for impeachment. This has never been a problem. The Court can sometimes be ponderous, but I've never seen an instance, certainly post reconstruction of it intentionally dodging resolving circuit splits to keep the laws different.

>>508978767
Yes, "ibid" is a SCOTUS thing that shows up whenever one of the old farts writes or joins an opinion.

I need you to show me where someone who isn't 70 used it in a legal filing. You can't.

>>508978714
>No, it's just refusing to resolve the split which it's within its Ariticle III prerogative.
What clause of Article III says that the Judicial Branch can rule Federal Law X unconstitutional in one part of the country but rule Federal Law X constitutional in another part of the country?

You already said the Executive can't do that.

>>508978947
>I need you to show me where someone who isn't 70 used it in a legal filing
ACB is 53 you fat-lipped nigger ape.

>>508971975
It’s lawful to use force to resist an unlawful arrest
https://archive.is/aUrNe

>>508978868
>But that's predicated on SCOTUS basically not doing its job, which is why the constitution has processes for impeachment.
You can't impeach SCOTUS justices for voting against granting cert. That's not "treason," or "bribery," or a "high crime or misdemeanor."

>>508975838
that a source is being cited but it has already been given so they are not going to write it out again

>>508979158
The opinion was joined by Thomas and Alito.

You can't show me a single example of a legal document authored solely by someone under 70 that uses "ibid."

>>508979175
>It’s lawful to use force to resist an unlawful arrest
In some based red states, yes. Nowhere else.

>>508978098
Everything is posted on the US scotus website and the scotusblog
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
That one pdf has all opinions included

>>508979239
>solely
you moved the goalposts! that's a concession on all points! thank you for playing!

>>508967110 (OP)
Oh shit she cited Marbury vs Madison, she really DID call her a retard...

>>508979434
If a 70+ year old was involved in the drafting, you might see an "ibid."

Lawyers and judges stopped using it in favor of "Id." about 40 years ago because of the Bluebook's proliferation.

>>508979188
>neocons
Using a president with dementia and his autopen to appoint an undeserving black women to the highest court in the nation so you can direct changes to Constitutional Law is MOST CERTAINLY treason, buckoo.

>>508967110 (OP)
Ahh, I now understand, why Jackson was allowed to be considered for such a prestigious position, in the first place. She is there to represent the role of the dumbed down, emotionally fragile masses. Then, the grown ups on the Supreme Court are meant to hand hold her, and methodically explain to her, why what she thinks is retarded, and most importantly, why what she thinks is unconstitutional. Namely, the modern, anti west, anti white culture, wokist retard views that have infected the world.
We, the people, are meant to watch and learn.
Its a little convoluted, but it is so crazy that it just might work.

>>508979071
I'd say Article III imposes a duty for the entire judiciary to faithfully apply the law, nothing requires courts in different jurisdictions to reach identical conclusions identical conclusions which is why final power is vested in the Supreme Court. This has been the practice for a long time, and nobody has brought these types of claims over circuit splits. So your interpretation is novel, and seems mostly like a solution looking for a problem. We've gotten so far away from the whether district courts have the power to issue universal injunctions.

>>508979613
>Bluebook's proliferation.
What?

>>508979312
If you read this Jackson writes "If a Martian arrived here from another planet..." she clearly has no idea a Martian means Mars and just used that to avoid the word 'alien' because illegal aliens le bad word. 80 iq

>>508979613
no, you're just a fucking retard! I'm beginning to suspect that you're not even white!

>>508979759
She was appointed to further the DEI bullshit. The asshole nominating her and EVERY FUCKING senator who voted to confirm should be censured for going along with this stupidity. You don't socially engineer the military or the courts, that's fucking beyond the pale ignorant.

>>508968769
You can't be a judge of any sort in America, unless you are Catholic or Jewish.
If you don't believe me simply look up judges in your own localities. Your districts. Your states, to the Supreme Court.
Judges are always, always, always, either Catholics or Jews.

>>508979830
I’ll have a look. Thanks leaf man

>>508979175
also, castle doctrine
>where available

>>508979825
It's a citation and style guide that forms the backbone of legal writing. It's the equivalent of MLA/APA you may have run into.

>>508979312
I get alerts from SCOTUS after ever decision, in my email. You can too, just sign up at their website. Not everything SCOTUS does makes the press.

>>508980247
>>508980698
Fuck it, get this man a West login, he can read almost every single case ever.

>>508980352
I googled and it's 'Chicago style citation' but then clearly states the supreme court still uses it. So a meaningless argument over style recommendations not any kind of rule

>>508979701
Even putting that aside, you can probably get her for gross incompetence and/or negligence too.
When your words can create a new law at the snap of a finger, you can't have shit like this.

>>508972264
She had the best opinion in Counterman.

>>508980832
Yeah nobody really gives that much of a fuck outside law reviewn it just forms the basis for a common set of expectations and default rules so people can find what you're referencing. Most courts have their own local rules that govern things you absolutely need to do. Do what the judge wants basically.

>>508980832
SCOTUS doesn't use Bluebook strictly in its own writing, but almost every court in America requires lawyers to use it in filings. (I think SCOTUS does too but I'm too lazy to look it up.)

>>508979701
Not treason. Treason is defined in the Constitution. Look it up.

>>508970747
>But I'm glad the nigger lost, even though she was right.

You are as disgusting as you are disingenuous.

>>508981189
sedition, then

>>508981189
has anyone been actually convicted of treason in the last 50 years, that one j6 guy got the ultimate based conviction of sedition and there's some CIA guy in a supermax convicted of basically treason but they didn't execute him

>>508967110 (OP)
>judiciary cant tell the executive to follow the law
Then the judiciary is good for nothing

>>508981401
>famous tranny spy doesn't apply

>>508981230
Don't worry, he thinks a decision from the 1950s based on an amendment from the 1860s tells us something about the scope of judicial remedies congress gave to the judiciary in the 1780s.

>>508981447
Yeah we should all take our cues from Brazil

>>508981447
>but thay can tell congress when they can't impeach

>>508979778
>I'd say Article III imposes a duty for the entire judiciary to faithfully apply the law, nothing requires courts in different jurisdictions to reach identical conclusions identical conclusions which is why final power is vested in the Supreme Court. This has been the practice for a long time, and nobody has brought these types of claims over circuit splits.
How do you know nobody has ever brought these types of claims? Have you read every single cert petition ever filed in a case where there is a split of authority in the lower courts over the validity or interpretation of a federal law? How do you know nobody has ever raised equal protection issues in those filings?

>So your interpretation is novel
No it's not. Plenty of people have written about the problems of circuit splits and state COLR splits on federal law.

>and seems mostly like a solution looking for a problem.
The problem walked into court a few weeks ago and argued a case before SCOTUS about whether district judges have the power to prevent the exact sort of equal protection violations I just discussed by way of nationwide rulings.

>We've gotten so far away from the whether district courts have the power to issue universal injunctions.
No, we haven't. Either the Judicial Branch has the power and duty to ensure the uniformity of federal law for all Americans or it doesn't. SCOTUS has shirked its duty along those lines so the district courts stepped in, as is their constitutional obligation.

>>508981497
they both 'violated the espionage act' but is there an actual law on treason where they send you to Terre Haute or some military stockade to get the rope

>>508967110 (OP)
The language of law is foreign and needs to be rewritten. I can understand what they're saying but it is foreign like they're characters in a book from a very different culture and time period. If I was ever dragged into one of their courts those kikes would have me raped by niggers before being raped to death by masons.

Babylon must be destroyed.

>>508981786
KBJ is in there saying she doesn't understand anything and doesn't read. That's not better.

>>508981514
>Don't worry, he thinks a decision from the 1950s based on an amendment from the 1860s tells us something about the scope of judicial remedies congress gave to the judiciary in the 1780s.
So no SCOTUS decisions prior to 1960 are valid?

>>508981743
>ensure the uniformity of federal law for all Americans
congress, mahboi

>>508979976
Yours is a doomer, glass half empty, view. I don't think it is as bleak as all that. The world is healing. Granted, it is hard to see it, at times. But, its happening.

>>508981786
The problem is lawyers like >>508981514, who make money off the retardation of the judicial system. And scream pilpul whenever anybody objects to it. Right now he's telling me that the constitutional principle of equal protection means that it's OK for courts in Georgia to invalidate a federal law while courts in Virginia say the federal law is enforceable and valid.

It's just nonsense.

>>508981930
What is Congress supposed to do when the Second Circuit says Federal Law X is unconstitutional but the Third Circuit says its constitutional?

>>508982025
but they do
>canseko,jose

>>508982097
fix the law?
>also, congresss shall make no law (dotdotdot)

>>508982213
How do you "fix" a law that one court says is valid but another court says is unconstitutional?

>>508967110 (OP)
Qrd?

>>508967110 (OP)
>All of those em dashes

From a practical point of view...
WE ARE ALREADY DEEP INSIDE "IDIOCRACY".

Our politicians are HIRED ACTORS.
The majority are paid by AIPAC & MOSSAD money to serve ISRAEL exclusively.

Our JUDICIARY are mostly illiterate morons unschooled in law or morality, they less valuable than HIRED ACTORS because they are either hired by "popularity contests of total strangers" (the electorate) or are appointed by those HIRED ACTORS TO SERVE ISRAEL. Those morons then make irrational illogical rulings in which the Jews always get to be the winners.

The news is basically entirely owned by Jews.

The police are Shabbas Goy puppetry shows belonging to Freemason pedo-boyfucker lodges which exist to let Jews escape all legal arrest and all legal investigation.

There is no branch of the government that serves THE PEOPLE unless THE PEOPLE you're serving is an Israeli Jew. The only thing keeping this beast in motion is the sheer illusion that we live in a nation under rules established centuries ago. The idiocy of the people is oddly the stubbornness preventing total collapse or total revolt. People have ILLUSIONS OF LAW that they work under, the only fix is to give them anecdotes, total lies, and engaging stories that the laws have been updated to be NEW BETTER INTERESTING!

ROBIN HOOD destroyed monarchies by "The Myth of the Good King". The lie of Camelot kept the myth running forwards. Just like STAR TREK promotes automated gay space communism, a compelling lie which is more enticing than the shitty reality, can cause the shitty reality to fall apart as people prefer the fantasy world lie to such an extreme that the shitty reality looks like a littered street in India.

THE BIGGEST TRICK YOU CAN PULL TO SAVE THE WHITE RACE...
TELL YOUR COMPELLING FANTASY WORLD LIE IN OTHER LANGUAGES.

In Hindi, Spanish, African languages, Arabic, and onward... Let your enemies destroy the Jews because they desire the lie far more than the shitty world Jews plan to let them stew within.

>>508967848
Courts can’t make nationwide remedies anymore, they’re back to being limited to only offer a remedy to the plaintiffs which is how it’s been done for centuries under common law doctrine of “no remedy, no right”, “right” requires damages by those with standing, and the court only recognizes and provides remedy to those with standing that approached the court - they don’t get to proactively remedy a nation at a district level for people who’ve not approached the court for a remedy

>>508981743
>SCOTUS has shirked its duty along those lines so the district courts stepped in, as is their constitutional obligation.
Where? What are these universal injunctions doing besides creating a rush to the courthouse doors and forum shopping so every plaintiff in America gets a veto on national policy? One district Court's interpretation of an unsettled legal question has no constitutional basis to become the law of the land. There's a reason courts resolve the disputes in front of them and Congrss and the President are politically accountable to set policy. A read in portion of the fifth amendment doesn't overturn the entire structure of government created by the Constitution.

>>508982358
>implying
>>508982355
>didn't read the OP

>>508982342
Article V

>>508981786
>The language of law is foreign and needs to be rewritten. I can understand what they're saying but it is foreign like they're characters in a book from a very different culture and time period. If I was ever dragged into one of their courts those kikes would have me raped by niggers before

This is absolutely fact. Well, it shouldn't be " rewritten ", so much as it should be TRANSLATED into language that most Americans are able to easily understand.

Absolutely. This needs to happen.

>>508981911
That's not what I said. Bolling simply doesn't tell us the extent of equitable remedies Congress granted the federal Judiciary in 1789.

>>508982579
There's already a push in legal writing to make the prose clearer and more easily digestible.

>>508980085
The catholics are usually jesuits, specifically, which is just a loophole for getting into the higher orders of world governance that usually require being a jew. You have to pass through the secret society bullshit.
It's all a big club and you ain't in it.

>>508982437
And now were back to "NUH UH YOU'RE WRONG" with zero legal authority to back it up.

The Constitution vested Congress with the authority to design a federal court system however the hell it wanted. Congress did so, and the system it created is a fucking mess. The Constitution doesn't stop that. It only requires that the system, however created, operate within the bounds of the Constitution.

Nationwide injunctions by lowly district judges are part of that, because barring district judges from issuing them violates the equal protection rights of nonparties. The law can't mean something different for people who sue vs. everybody else. That makes it not law.

>>508980085
jesuits = jews. loyola hired and admired them. some think he even was one.

Let's be very clear and very precise.

LAWS ARE WORDS.
WORDS ARE NOT ACTIONS.
ACTIONS DECIDE EVERYTHING.

LAWS ARE A POLITENESS.
AN EXPENSIVE ILLUSION.

ARGUING OVER WORDS IS FAR LESS VALUABLE THAN ARGUING OVER ACTIONS.

If you want change for the better, COMMIT ACTIONS, justify them afterwards. Words are cheap, laws are illusions. If you don't survive as an individual or a race of breedable humans, LITERALLY NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

If you're a nearly extinct race... Does MONEY matter? Do LAWS matter? Does your HISTORY BOOKS matter? Does all this prattling over words accomplish anything or is it as useless as the useless noises of a woman standing there as the next victim l, screaming as a feral pitbull dog rips her husband's arm off?

>>508982579
>>508981786
maybe you retards should stop being niggerbrained idiots? try raising your iq a bit? learn to read?

>>508982025
No, the problem is talmudic jews and their masonic henchmen.

To any of you retarded faggots that say masons controls the jew, show me banks and stock exchanges founded without jew money.

>"If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."
Why is the law written, and due legal process established in a way that it must be explained to me by a vested actor? Why can I not have a system that I actively participate in?

Read that last part again, court kikes.

>>508982675
Well, it needs to be pushed harder and faster. The main problem we face is simply that people do not understand concepts like law, or what is in our founding documents.
You can brush it off by just saying " people are stupid ", if you want, but that doesn't solve the problem.
Some people are stupid. Others are busy. Others are naive, and overly trusting, gullible.
The results are the same. Ignorance and compassion leads to chaos and the destruction of our country.
Large language models can be used to translate our important documents, and laws into something the average American can understand.
Do this, and many social problems we are having, will cease to exist.

>>508982632
What happens when the judicial remedies provided by Congress violate equal protection? Suppose Congress passed a law that said whites could file quo warranto actions against federal officials but no one else could?

What does a federal court do when a black files a quo warranto? Tell us, Mr. Justice.

>>508983245
>Large language models can be used to translate our important documents, and laws into something the average American can understand.
Retard detected. May as well translate the Bill of Rights into emojis/emotes while we're at it.

>>508982998
Who says anything about the law being different for people who sue or not? How is a difference in law even relevant when you're not a party to a suit? I'm entitled to the same law being applied to my dispute, I don't have the right to another's remedy; I may not even want it. Further, Congress already has a process for creating a case that can bind the multitude. Rule 23 is cumbersome precisely because it ought to be if a party is asking for such extensie relief. Judges shouldn't be able to do end runs around this because they plaitniff's end goal is to affect policy.

>>508983310
Rule the law by congress violates equal protection on the basis of a protected class.

>>508983113
Your way does not work. Obviously. Look around you, and tell me the results of your way of doing things.
If you, yourself, are not a leftist, you sure as fuck think like one.
People like you want to remain believing that You are very, very, special boys! You want everyone to refer, and defer to YOU! as an EXPERT!
Fuck off, fag.
Vital information about our world, belongs to all of us.
You are merely a steward of information.
It is the responsibility of those who understand, to mete out truth and facts, and reasoning to others who want to know.

And anyway, pussybois like you often don't even " know " what they pretend to know.
Faggots like you just play along, going with the crowd, just so that you are included in the big boi's club, when in truth, you don't know shit. Ypu are just pretending to know. You go along to get along, looking down on normal Americans, even though you, yourself are normie as it gets. But you just got lucky to be able to fool everybody else.

>>508967110 (OP)
The most based member of the court is a Black man though.

>>508983555
>May as well translate the Bill of Rights into emojis/emotes while we're at it.

Yes. We may as well. If that is what it takes to get people to understand their own world, and their place in their own culture. Then, absolutely. It should be done. What ever works, is what should be done. Then, we build from there.

>>508984219
>Yes. We may as well
I heard killing yourself will help you understand the law to. You should get right to that.

>>508970747
Head right back to plebbit, faggot. Your jewspeak and attempt to fit in is transparent.

>>508968253
Courts are the only meaningful thing in this country conservatives have managed to conserve. Won't rule out the possibility of it getting worse but when Republicans have power aggressively filling court vacancies is the one good deed they accomplish. This is especially true of the SCOTUS, where conservatives have stuffed liberals into a locker over the last few decades.

>>508967110 (OP)
catfight in the court

>>508984275
You are a lame, closet faggot tranny and everyone knows it. You are weak and it shows.

>>508983941
The information that is vital to our world is there. It's not anyone else's fault that you are too unintelligent to process it. You literally being too dumb to read makes you nigger-tier.

>>508984425
>the tranny calls others trannies
What is the name of this condition?

>>508983648
lol you're clearly still in law school with this protected class nonsense

Does the Court allow the black's lawsuit to proceed or not?

>>508967110 (OP)
There idea that a single district judge can dictate policy for other districts would have backfired hard. If the democrats got back into power, republican judges would do the same thing to them. I guess they forgot how conservative judges blocked Biden's student loan forgiveness.

>>508984289
So if Congress passes a law making handguns illegal, you want ONLY the people who can pay a lawyer to sue to be able to have guns?

You're the Jew here, not me.

>>508968253
Footage of Supreme Court debate, circa 2040, colorized
https://youtu.be/fmO-ziHU_D8

>>508983113
>>508984545
>learn to read?
Read the Protocols of Zion, kike. When I see men in black robes wield power over the ignorant with a hammer, their guards wear the star of remphan, and they speak a decorated, foreign tongue all I see is Babylon.

Babylon, it's Talmud, and it's Jews must be destroyed. They killed America, and they deserve complete destruction.

>>508984777
>2:50 - nigger starts singing
>Cuts to other nigger saying that she's debating against that all year
w-what?

>>508973660

Legally dont know
but in theory it can be remedied by the voters in the next election
Ultimately power is wielded by the most powerful and or the most willing
Our nation, like the rest of the West, is falling due to apathy
The remedy , outside of revolution , would be putting in hard work and time to build institutions with power as well as sending messages and following through EXP " if you don't support deportations you lose our vote , and we dont care who runs against you "
That last strategy requires unity and the wisdom to decide which few issues are that important.

>>508984640
Are you retarded? B files the suit. Presumably the official responds he doesn't have standing see X. B responds statute is facially unconstitutional. Presumably B requests remedy to sever the discriminatory language, while official argues the whole statute is void. Either way the blatantly unconstitutional discrimination fails.

>>508985140
This is a yes or no question. After ruling that the quo warranto statute violates equal protection, does the court allow the nigger to keep suing or not?

>>508968253
>>508968253
I mean, she’s 1 of 9 (11%).

11% of Americans are absolutely functionally retarded, so I suppose it’s ok for them to have 1 vote of representation on the Court.

>>508985450
Without more detail I can't really flesh out a full analysis. My guess is yes the court would find the statute severable and the suit will be allowed to proceed.

>>508985450
>>508985450
>does the court award standing
ftfy

>>508984289
They really do stick out like a sore thumb, don't they?
Lmao.

>>508969359
>>508970311

FDR was more of a Dictator than Trump ever was or will be.

>>508984545
Dregs like you make me puke.
You leftist, nepo baby scum.
The more people among the masses who can understand the laws of their land, the origins of their culture, why civilization exists, and how it got there, the better.
Scummy faggots like you want a monarchy, where you are the kings and you have control over the facts.
No. The law belongs to every American.
Your subversions have worked so far. To dumb down the populace, just so you can say,
" Seee! They're all too stupid to understand ( the laws by which we subjugate them. ) "
So now, we've got to meet the masses where they are. Yes, even if it means using emojis. At first.
You fags lose. Americans win.
Get fucked, tranny commie.

>>508967110 (OP)
>muh two centuries of precedent
aka
>t. because I’m white and I say so law
We done wit dat shit. We demand real justice.

>>508985689
Courts don't "award" standing, lol. And my hypothetical isn't about standing.

>>508985685
So you agree that Congress is not the SOLE source of juridical authority for Article III courts. If Congress passes some investiture of authority in the Article III courts that has equal protection flaws, courts can and should cure that by blue penciling the statute to add whatever powers are needed to cure the equal protection problem. Right? I mean that's what you just said.

>>508969035
Why is this the first time she became based? Women really hate each other

The amount of black Americans in generational ghetto poverty is at record lows

>>508969035
Why is this the first time she became based? Women really hate each other

Over 67% of black american families are two-parent black american families

>>508986485
Obviously grants of jurisdiction are subject to constitutional limitations. That's not in contention. However, the fact that Congress can't dole out causes of action to some races and not others doesn't tell us a thing about the extent of a district court's power to fashion an equitable remedy beyond what is required to grant the plaintiff complete relief. The fifth amendment tells us about certain substantive and procedural rights defendants have, it says nothing about the structure or jurisdiction of the judiciary. Article III leaves that to congress. Then we go and see in 1789 congress gave the judiciary both legal and equitable jurisdiction as it was understood at the time. Nothing about the way equitable power was used or understood then or for the next 150 years suggests universal injunctions were included in that grant of power. Accordingly, district courts can't go beyond the bounds of the dispute in front of them. This idea that the universal injunction vitiates the equal protection requirement of the fifth amendment has no real basis in U.S. law. Maybe it's an interesting thought if you're trying to note on to law review, but it's not how the law works.

marbury v madison was a mistake, dumb ass fuckers left us with women squabbling. There is no reason for the judiciary to have any say whatsoever

>>508975316
In reality it’s likely closer to 140, 120, 110. This is grim though when you remember the pool they are being selected from. The LSAT is a proxy for (verbally-skewed) IQ and top schools have average LSAT scores in the 99.5th percentile.

>>508975621
can Justices be kicked out for acting a fool?

>>508988631
They removed the only moderately challenging part of the LSAT this year.

>>508989354
Not exactly. Logic games is the hardest but also the easiest to study: it’s common advice to not be satisfied till you are acing logic games but most people start as that with their lowest score. Reading comprehension and logical reasoning (particularly the former) are notorious for not improving.
It’s moot anyways since they all took theirs a long time ago.

>>508989873
Hmm I never knew that was the conventional wisdom. I feel like the reasoning and comprehension are a cakewalk once you realize it's vastly quicker to identify 4 wrong answers than one right one. I guess games was the only one that even required a modicum of effort to master.

>>508988631
you are hilarious. you think some dumb nigger woman was held to the same standards as everyone else? hahahaha you need to get out more and experience life in america. i can assure you there is not a single competent nigger in my workplace, yet we keep hiring them and they get away with shit a white would get fired for doing once. they can do it 10 times and still be employed. i dont even know how these niggers get in the door, half can barely speak english and none of them read for shit.

>>508977667
thomas would have made it much more succinct and thus more brutal.

>>508990933
You can read his concurrence

>>508987116
>However, the fact that Congress can't dole out causes of action to some races and not others doesn't tell us a thing about the extent of a district court's power to fashion an equitable remedy beyond what is required to grant the plaintiff complete relief.
So, per you, the only people entitled to the benefit of their Constitutional rights (and other rights afforded by federal law) are people who can afford a $400 federak court filing fee and $25,000 minimum (often much more) to litigate a civil action in federal court.

That's not what the Constitution says. If a federal law (or executive order, etc.) is unconstitonal as applied to people who have the money to file lawsuits, it's unconstitutional as applied to everybody.

That's a core requirement of equal protection that Nigger Fake Justice Jackson and the shitty lawyers who argued the case failed to use, even though it's correct.

The Constitution doesn't only exist for rich people who can afford lawyers. As a 2L you obviously wish it did, but it doesn't.

>>508967110 (OP)
This is racism -full stop.

>>508973831
This, please cause a popular uprising against nonwhites and kikes.

>>508991849
Again I'm confused. How is the law unevenly applied if parties aren't involved in live disputes? If there's no legal activity, the government isn't doing anything to you so there's no harm to remedy. It seems impossible for the law to be unevenly applied, and simultaneously there be no legal proceedings through which it operates.

>>508967110 (OP)
Whit people don't season dey laws

>>508991220
Post it

>>508967110 (OP)
>Executive must follow the law
>But the judiciary can't hold them accountable to it.

Are they retarded?

>>508994550
Good morning sir

>>508994699
It's barely 6:00

>>508992259
The government passes an unconstitutional law. Per you, the only people who can be afforded relief from the law by a federal district court are people who have the money to sue. So apparently, per your theory, every single American has to file new lawsuits every single year to challenge every law that they think might be unconstitutional. They can't simply free ride on a lawsuit filed by another, which is the historical norm.

>>508995021
Brother, do you know how many unconstitutional laws sit on the books, unenforced? If the law is held unconstitutional and void the government stops enforcing it. So unless the government is bringing legal proceedings against you citing the unconstitutional law--which it would immediately lose on--there's no reason to get a lawyer. I don't get why you think I have to bring a suit each time I exercise my rights.

>>508995584
>If the law is held unconstitutional and void the government stops enforcing it.
This is nonsense. Neither the federal government nor any state government acts this way. I was involved in video poker machine litigation in a state where every county had a different judge rule differently. The state never gave up until the state supremes ruled.

>So unless the government is bringing legal proceedings against you citing the unconstitutional law--which it would immediately lose on--there's no reason to get a lawyer.
Not all laws are enforced by Government v. Defendant lawsuits, dummy. Many are enforced in other ways that don't put you before a judge.

>>508975316
I'd say, more realistically:
>Kagan 118-124
>Sotomayor 90-97
>Jackson 85-87

Which is just fucking GRIM enough as it is, normies do not understand what power + low IQ + vehement antiwhite hatred, and seething equals, but they're sure to fucking find out VERY SOON

>>508996175
Okay what is wrong with that? Trial court isnt binding authority. The state ir whoever has every right to pursue on appeal up to the highest authority. Your screeching about a feature not a bug in the system.

>Not all laws are enforced by Government v. Defendant lawsuits, dummy. Many are enforced in other ways that don't put you before a judge.
You do know what the APA is right?