Removed by mod

Irish / Celtic population is known for being curly too

Sir 48% of voters approve of trumps actions so far. Those red state AGs will be championed for selectively applying the constitution as Trump sees fit. I’d expect prayer in schools and banning of protest will be the first to go.

? I didn’t. I repeated the same thing I’ve been saying for the past 5 comments and the dissenting opinion from Jackson. Even the site you linked me says it applies as I’ve stated so wtf are you talking about? Are you a bad AI?

The Court’s opinion specifically addressed whether multiple states could get broad nationwide relief without showing concrete harm for all non-plaintiffs.

It sets a binding precedent that narrows when lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions.

That means it does have general implications for all future injunctions

Supreme Court opinions - even on the Shadow Docket - do have precedential effect, so lower courts will treat this as binding guidance on how to craft injunctions going forward.

Jackson’s dissident seems pretty clear?

JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting. I agree with every word of JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR’s dissent. I write separately to emphasize a key conceptual point: The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.

It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution—please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.

Stated simply, what it means to have a system of government that is bounded by law is that everyone is constrained by the law, no exceptions. And for that to actually happen, courts must have the power to order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop. To conclude otherwise is to endorse the creation of a zone of lawlessness within which the Executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes, and where individuals who would otherwise be entitled to the law’s protection become subject to the Executive’s whims instead.

The majority cannot deny that our Constitution was designed to split the powers of a monarch between the governing branches to protect the People. Nor is it debatable that the role of the Judiciary in our constitutional scheme is to ensure fidelity to law. But these core values are strangely absent from today’s decision. Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate. The very institution our founding charter charges with the duty to ensure universal adherence to the law now requires judges to shrug and turn their backs to intermittent lawlessness. With deep disillusionment, I dissent.

It affects all nationwide injunctions not just this one.

This ruling changes when and how lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions for any future case.

Courts can still block federal policies - but now they must limit injunctions to the actual plaintiffs or a certified class.

Those articles say it does apply to nationwide injunctions in general so Wdym?

The court decided that nationwide injunctions, or court orders that prevent the government from enforcing a specific law or policy, are unconstitutional.

You’re assuming the midterms will save you but that assumes he won the election fairly. Which he didn’t based on the suppression tactics he down alone; before you get to the dodgy voting patterns and gerrymandering.

Yeah technically but still makes it a lot harder, more expensive, and longer; especially for the unlucky ones in red states who now have unequal access to justice. Giving them plenty of time to do whatever the f they want. Already bumrushing people at breakneck speed on the streets and shipping them off to random countries what do you reckon they’ll manage in their remaining 3.5+ years.

Polling is not the result, and doesn’t explain the discrepancies in the data.

There is lots of data though. Trump had absolutely nothing and got laughed out of courts by judges he appointed.

https://electiontruthalliance.org/2024-us-election-analysis

Think you’re downplaying it a bit. They’ve been getting blocked due to injunctions. 23 so far. Now they’re not possible anymore. States will selectively enforce the constitution.

Might just be Glaswegian.

Because it’s the only app most normal people have. That or fb messenger.

I assume they mean social group chats. You’re not gonna get the lads to form a breakout team to organise the stag.

OSX already does this so many will be. I don’t use it when I’m texting something but it helps me follow group chats id usually ignore or if my wife has texted me a bunch of stuff I’ll see a quick summary including ‘make sure to do x’

In a world of headlines there is no difference. Opinion pieces are just a way to publish something and deny association to it.

So much other stuff will happen before then

That is an oversimplification. While the IRS can issue levies to federally regulated banks, it usually requires a formal legal process such as a tax lien or a court order. Banks do not comply automatically without proper documentation. State laws can influence how quickly or effectively the IRS operates, especially if the state limits data sharing, delays cooperation, or questions jurisdiction. Not all banks are federally chartered. Some are licensed at the state level and may face different legal pressures. California cannot stop the IRS entirely, but it can slow down enforcement, create legal friction, and raise the political stakes.

3000 children emerge from the shadows

They’ll like whatever they’re told to like.