Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Nationwide injunctions
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 09:48:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <1tp47k5rmt6gl6uv9hp52jmbe1iu5m3nm6@4ax.com>
References: <103pknh$129f7$2@dont-email.me> <104p1h3$10111$4@dont-email.me> <104p4ul$1126q$1@dont-email.me> <104p5s7$10111$8@dont-email.me> <104p744$116tg$3@dont-email.me> <2ev17k54eu6opj0r2eeq9qn9392huvh0ba@4ax.com> <104r9p1$1ihg6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2025 15:48:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="700c5cfa21f2c68042a4b6e4836f8f27";
	logging-data="2278076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AsbSRbK7v+PIiXoV8kDQC152WhHSCk/I="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9sTIFq7UsdOFYKd6dLRC9b84C1w=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 250712-2, 7/12/2025), Outbound message
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 3.3/32.846
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:14:39 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>   On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>   Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
>>>>>>>   his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
>>>>>>>   don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
>>>>>>>   Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
>>>>>>>   file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
>>>>>>>   equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
>>>>>>>   case after case after case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
>>>>>>>   government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
>>>>>>>   remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
>>>>>>>   authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
>>>>>>>   Congress would have to fix that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
>>>>>>>   too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
>>>>>>>   something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
>>>>>>>   there is court jurisdiction for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
>>>>>>>   heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
>>>>>>>   courts, Trump will win on the merits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>   So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
>>>>>>   nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>   SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
>>>>>>   more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
>>>>>>   Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
>>>>>>   how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>   Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>   abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
>>>>> ...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the
>>>> lawsuit is filed.
>>>
>>> As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the
>>> parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
>>> would put an end to birth tourism.
>> 
>> Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?
>
>Libs insist it's none of your business...
>

Well now you're talking in circles.
Make up your mind already.