Fellow Americans. Do you oppose Nationwide Injunctions?

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

If you dont have standing your case is dismissed for lack of same.

 

Doesn't change the fact that any person at any time can start a legal action, does it?

 

[Cameroni]

Dan gave me a sad emoji, lol...

 

You naughty boy!!!

[Yagoda]

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

If you dont have standing your case is dismissed for lack of same.

OK now you are learning. Tell us what standing is then? . You dont need to answer right away, you can study.

 

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You apparently have no idea of what legal standing is our you wouldn't question a "nation wide injunction".

Is it only me that questions Nationwide Injunctions? 

 

3 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Federal cases are heard in Federal District Courts first and can escalate from there.

You mean appealed. District Courts have "original jurisdiction". Appellate Courts do not except in very limited circumstance.

 

5 minutes ago, Dan O said:

You aren't educated or aren't really an American as you display little to no knowledge of the workings of the government. Never have facts and can't attach links to support your claims when asked except your 2 go toos, DEI and Border issues. You just spew bs and think that supports your empty concepts. When called out you defend but stating your translating the replies to you with some twisted bs and then like trump you claim victory without accomplishing anything. True knob 

What other issues would you like to discuss? You should have no difficulty besting me in a debate about US Law, and virtually anyhting else because Im not "educated" and "display little knowledge". Guess you can answer my uneducated questions easily then.

 

Heres one, have universal injunctions been given an imprimatur by the Supreme Court?  Got a case where it has?

[Yagoda]

10 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Doesn't change the fact that any person at any time can start a legal action, does it?

 

I wonder if he confuses Jurisdiction and Standing, which we know are different concepts.

 

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Dan gave me a sad emoji, lol...

 

You naughty boy!!!

Thats how they roll. I got one in a different topic for applauding the arrest of a child predator.

[Dan O]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

OK now you are learning. Tell us what standing is then? . You dont need to answer right away, you can study.

 

Is it only me that questions Nationwide Injunctions? 

 

You mean appealed. District Courts have "original jurisdiction". Appellate Courts do not except in very limited circumstance.

 

What other issues would you like to discuss? You should have no difficulty besting me in a debate about US Law, and virtually anyhting else because Im not "educated" and "display little knowledge". Guess you can answer my uneducated questions easily then.

 

Heres one, have universal injunctions been given an imprimatur by the Supreme Court?  Got a case where it has?

You post moronic replies and think they prove your position but they dont. Your time is up on this topic with me.  You are a waste of time and space with your circular attempts just to make posts   Now you can claim victory as Trump would but you'll still be the losing knob. Have a great day 

[Yagoda]

1 minute ago, Dan O said:

You post moronic replies and think they prove your position but they dont. Your time is up on this topic with me.  You are a waste of time and space with your circular attempts just to make posts   Now you can claim victory as Trump would but you'll still be the losing knob. Have a great day 

Translation: I shall retire, most ungracefully with flames, because you have exposed my lack of knowledge on a subject I expounded on in my Trump hate obsession.

[Cameroni]

Complete and total victory. Trump and his men cannot be defeated.

 

All the winning is too much.

[Dan O]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Doesn't change the fact that any person at any time can start a legal action, does it?

 

Starting a legal action isn't standing.  Anyone can start a case but it has to be in the correct jurisdiction or its dismissed. If it moves forward and legal standing can not be established its also dismissed. Trying to jump on the stupid train with your buddy shows you lack credibility and intelligence.

[theshu25]

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

 

Well then;

 

"Getting a bit nervous at all the reversals of trumps exec orders and mass firings aren't you. Keep your seat as more are coming as Trump continues to act outside his authority. "

 

I  will let the Forum decide who might be "the knob"

We all know it is you that is the biggest knob on the site.

[Dan O]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Quite so. 

 

So really what is required is a purge to eliminate the activist judges. Trump could pass a directive stating that judges who have shown political bias be removed.

 

Adolf never had a problem with judges. Never. Quite the opposite, they were more zealous than he was.

 

Trump could even set up new courts, special courts to deal with political judges. 

 

The options are endless really.

So you are freely comparing hilter and trump in their actions. At least you got this one right. Now backtrack and claim you didn't just do that or that Trump isnt doing the same things Hitler did to come to power?

[Yagoda]

3 minutes ago, theshu25 said:

We all know it is you that is the biggest knob on the site.

What a fabulous contribution to the discussion of a serious and arcane legal matter. Kudos to you! We are all in awe of your knowledge in this matter.

[Yagoda]

9 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Anyone can start a case but it has to be in the correct jurisdiction or its dismissed.

Oh? Really? Are you sure you understand the concept of jurisdiction? Anyone can walk into a Federal District Court anywhere and start a case? 

 

You sure?

[Cameroni]

12 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Starting a legal action isn't standing.  Anyone can start a case but it has to be in the correct jurisdiction or its dismissed. If it moves forward and legal standing can not be established its also dismissed. Trying to jump on the stupid train with your buddy shows you lack credibility and intelligence.

 

And a banana is not cigar, but that's hardly the point is it?

 

Our learned friend Yagoda has rightly raised the issue of nationwide injuctions.

 

The problem with same is conflicting law, not standing or jurisdiction:

 

Take the mifepristone case. Though the Eastern District of Washington limited the scope of its ruling to the Democratic plaintiff states, the Northern District of Texas ruling applied nationwide, leaving the judges’ orders at war with one another in nearly half the states. 

 

So much for jurisdiction neatly working itself out.

 

 

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, Dan O said:

So you are freely comparing hilter and trump in their actions. At least you got this one right. Now backtrack and claim you didn't just do that or that Trump isnt doing the same things Hitler did to come to power?

 

I did do that, I never backtrack, but sadly you did not understand what was said, because if you had you would have understood that Trump is precisely NOT doing what Hitler did.

[Dan O]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I did do that, I never backtrack, but sadly you did not understand what was said, because if you had you would have understood that Trump is precisely NOT doing what Hitler did.

That's not what you wrote or implied in your post 

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Dan O said:

That's not what you wrote or implied in your post 

 

Not to you, since you don't speak English apparently.

[Dan O]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

And a banana is not cigar, but that's hardly the point is it?

 

Our learned friend Yagoda has rightly raised the issue of nationwide injuctions.

 

The problem with same is conflicting law, not standing or jurisdiction:

 

Take the mifepristone case. Though the Eastern District of Washington limited the scope of its ruling to the Democratic plaintiff states, the Northern District of Texas ruling applied nationwide, leaving the judges’ orders at war with one another in nearly half the states. 

 

So much for jurisdiction neatly working itself out.

 

 

Nice try but out of context. Try again when you have better information on what standing, jurisdiction, federal and state laws are and how they are handled.

 

Having a difference in the way laws are applied is part of the checks and balances process for due course. When laws are interrupted differently its often in what was actually filed in the case as the filings may be for different issues in each district. There is also the appeals process available to clarify what the overall ruling will be if they are identical filings with 2 different outcomes. However depending on what the case was filed for in each district if they are for different issues they can both stand independently because the ruling may address different remediation

[Dan O]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Not to you, since you don't speak English apparently.

Its your post and you wrote it. I speak English very well and I agreed with your statement. Trump is acting just like Hitler did leading up to his power takeover. Displaying the same rhetoric in find someone to blame for the ills of the country and claiming he has the solution

[Cameroni]

Just now, Dan O said:

Trump is acting just like Hitler

I'm saying the exact opposite!

[Dan O]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

I'm saying the exact opposite!

Hahahah ok.