- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
We now have the dissent of Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:03 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:03 am
quote:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order,”
“I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trumpv. J.G.G., 604 U. S. (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.”
“This Court had jurisdiction only if the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction of the applicants’ appeal, and the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction only if the supposed order that the applicants appealed amounted to the denial of a preliminary injunction,”
“But here, the “order” that applicants appealed was what they viewed as the District Court’s “‘constructive’” denial of their request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).”
“When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency relief, and we were informed that a decision would be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to wait,”
LINK
18
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:06 am to BCreed1
I would encourage you all to read it and the rules he uses in the dissent
quote:
Although the Court provided class-wide relief, the District Court never certified a class, and this Court has never held that class relief may be sought in a habeas proceeding.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:06 am to BCreed1
It's pretty hard for SCOTUS to appear credible when it is breaking the law.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:06 am to BCreed1
Thank God for Alito and Thomas, even if all is lost, we still have a few men of integrity left
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:07 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:07 am to BCreed1
quote:
Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order
But some moron on this board (we all know who) said SCOTUS only rules when a case is appropriately brought before them. That's why they couldn't halt the irreparable harm created by the COVID shot mandate, according to that moron. Apparently that only matters when it hurts America.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:09 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:09 am to imjustafatkid
quote:Ah yes the "ripe" case argument.
But some moron on this board (we all know who) said SCOTUS only rules when a case is appropriately brought before them
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:12 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
SCOTUS only rules when a case is appropriately brought before them.
They broke their OWN rules on this:
quote:
It is questionable whether the applicants complied
with the general obligation to seek emergency in-
junctive relief in the District Court before asking for
such relief from an appellate court. Fed. Rules App.
Proc. 8(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(C). When the applicants re-
quested such relief in the District Court, they in-
sisted on a ruling within 45 minutes on Good Friday
afternoon, and when the District Court did not act
within 133 minutes, they filed a notice of appeal,
which the District Court held deprived it of jurisdic-
tion. See ECF Doc. 41, at 3–4. It is doubtful that
this aborted effort satisfied Federal Rule of Appel-
late Procedure 8(a)(1)(C).
? When this Court rushed to enter its order, the Court
of Appeals was considering the issue of emergency
relief, and we were informed that a decision would
be forthcoming. This Court, however, refused to
wait. But under this Court’s Rule 23.3, “[e]xcept in
the most extraordinary circumstances, an applica-
tion for a stay will not be entertained unless the re-
lief requested was first sought in the appropriate
court or courts below or from a judge or judges
thereof.”
? The only papers before this Court were those submit-
ted by the applicants. The Court had not ordered or
received a response by the Government regarding ei-
ther the applicants’ factual allegations or any of the
legal issues presented by the application. And the
Court did not have the benefit of a Government re-
sponse filed in any of the lower courts either. When
the applicants first raised their allegations in the
District Court, that court provided the Government
with 24 hours to respond, and was poised to rule ex-
peditiously. See ECF Doc. 41, at 3–4. But the Dis-
trict Court dissolved the Government’s obligation to
respond after counsel for applicants filed their hasty
appeal which, in the District Court’s view, deprived
it of jurisdiction to rule. Id., at 4–5
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:14 am to Jbird
quote:
Ah yes the "ripe" case argument.
SFP is gonna be mad at you knowing what that is! You are not an attorney!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:14 am to BCreed1
quote:
SFP is gonna be mad at you knowing what that is! You are not an attorney!
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:17 am to BCreed1
quote:
But under this Court’s Rule 23.3, “[e]xcept in
the most extraordinary circumstances
Like when the Administration has already renditioned litigants out of the country and the jurisdiction of US Courts and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
I agree that’s something extraordinary that’s never been done before.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:19 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Oh well by all means go rogue in your jurisdiction!
Like when the Administration has already renditioned litigants out of the country and the jurisdiction of US Courts and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:21 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Like when the Administration has already renditioned litigants out of the country and the jurisdiction of US Courts and then claimed laughable impotency to return them?
I agree that’s something extraordinary that’s never been done before.
Glad to see you did not read it so we can make more fun of you.
The Fed Gov had already responded to the removal of these this class of people. So once again, you are blindly wrong.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:21 am to boosiebadazz
You're applying whataboutism to SCOTUS?
I guess this really does make the branches "co-equal".
I guess this really does make the branches "co-equal".
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:21 am to Jbird
Sounds like 7 of the 9 thought that was an extraordinary circumstance. Exactly as their rules allow them to do 
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:25 am to BCreed1
You asserted they broke their own rules by issuing the order. Again, you failed to read what you cited. It clearly states “except in the most extraordinary circumstances…”
Just like yesterday when ChatGPT didn’t tell you that Article III is important because it vests the judicial power in SCOTUS and the inferior courts.
When you rely on others to do your thinking for you then you miss a lot of things.
Just like yesterday when ChatGPT didn’t tell you that Article III is important because it vests the judicial power in SCOTUS and the inferior courts.
When you rely on others to do your thinking for you then you miss a lot of things.
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:28 am
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:26 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Teaming with the wise Latina and Company!
7 of the 9 t
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:28 am to Jbird
When you’ve lost Gorsuch then you’ve gone too far.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:29 am to BCreed1
Amazing that the Supreme Court is ruling on enforcing the rights of people that have entered the country illegally and by definition have no rights under the protection of the constitution. What a wonderful thing we have done to the republic.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:31 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
When you’ve lost Gorsuch then you’ve gone too far.
Gorsuch is often and regularly wrong when it comes to native American tribes.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:32 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
You asserted they broke their own rules by issuing the order. Again, you failed to read what you cited. It clearly states “except in the most extraordinary circumstances…”
No, Thomas and Alito stated that. Again, WRONG.
And he stated the SCOTUS already had the words of the Fed Gov from a lower court on THIS CLASS and their status.
quote:
Just like yesterday when ChatGPT didn’t tell you that Article III is important because it vests the judicial power in SCOTUS and the inferior courts.
You are truly a dumb arse.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News