3 ms·

And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.

readthenotes1 1y ago
No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  I don't think the person you are replying to is necessarily referencing this recent particular case as you assume. In 2024 SCOTUS injected new very very very very broad immunity from prosecution to all past, present and future presidents. Leading a violent insurrection apparently qualifies as a "presidential act"? They are indeed Kings now.
  - sundaeofshock 1y ago
    I absolutely was referencing the court’s ruling on Friday. The court has explicitly stated that injunctive relief is no longer available. The president can now strip away the rights of any citizen, and only those with the ability to fight in courts can challenge this action.

No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.

HaZeust 1y ago
Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
myvoiceismypass 1y ago
I don't think the person you are replying to is necessarily referencing this recent particular case as you assume. In 2024 SCOTUS injected new very very very very broad immunity from prosecution to all past, present and future presidents. Leading a violent insurrection apparently qualifies as a "presidential act"? They are indeed Kings now.
- sundaeofshock 1y ago
  I absolutely was referencing the court’s ruling on Friday. The court has explicitly stated that injunctive relief is no longer available. The president can now strip away the rights of any citizen, and only those with the ability to fight in courts can challenge this action.