-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So far, at least nine (now ~40) (now >70) judges, including Trump appointees, have called a halt to Trump executive actions
- Thread starter essentialsaltes
- Start date
Another win for Trump. The Supreme Court over rules a lesser court AGAIN.
These courts are overstepping their authority and continue to do so. Even now we are seeing lower courts failing to follow Supreme Court rulings. Trying to go around their rulings.
Well here's another win.
These courts are overstepping their authority and continue to do so. Even now we are seeing lower courts failing to follow Supreme Court rulings. Trying to go around their rulings.
Well here's another win.
Upvote
0
RocksInMyHead
God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
- May 12, 2011
- 9,076
- 9,798
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Which ones didn't happen?
The ACLU filed a complaint in court on behalf of a larger group, which met all of the requirements and included the motion for class certification.
The defendant (the US government, representing Donald J Trump) was granted a chance to oppose the motion in a hearing. At that hearing, the judge granted certification of the class and issued a temporary injunction halting enforcement of the executive order against that certified class.
The members of the class do not need to be notified, nor does the case need to go to trial in order for a judge to issue a temporary injunction. Temporary injunctions are just that - temporary. They stop one party in the case from doing something potentially illegal until the case can be heard in order to prevent serious or irreparable harm from coming to the other party. I think that we can all agree that preventing someone from obtaining US citizenship who is legally entitled to it would constitute "serious or irreparable harm". Since the purpose of the case is to determine whether this class of persons is entitled to citizenship, your opinion on whether or not they are citizens is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Oct 17, 2011
- 41,728
- 44,834
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Judge restricts some immigration raids in California
The temporary restraining order blocks the Department of Homeland Security from making arrests of people based solely on factors like race, accent, the type of work they do and their presence at a particular location -- such as day laborer pick up sites and agricultural sites.The order comes after a lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups accused federal agents of targeting Latino communities with unconstitutional tactics — including warrantless arrests, racial profiling and denying access to legal counsel.
"What the federal government would have this Court believe —in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening," [judge] Frimpong wrote.
see also
Upvote
0
Similar threads
