Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,157 posts)
35. I'm absolutely, positively not wrong.
Sat Dec 6, 2025, 01:58 AM
Dec 2025

Did you read the article? It's from June and it is about the decision on the application for a partial stay and was focused on the issue of whether a nationwide injunction was appropriate. The "fiery" dissent was on that issue. It wasn't on whether a petition for cert should be granted on the underlying question of the constitutionality of the executive order because, well, no such petition had been filed, something all of the justices acknowledged. Indeed, the upshot of the partial stay decision was that the injunction against the executive order remained in effect, but only with respect to the named plaintiffs in the lower court case, not nationwide. And, in fact, when the cases went back to the lower courts, they ended up being transformed into class actions and the executive order has been and remains effectively enjoined a nationwide basis.

The Court couldn't have already granted cert because no petition for cert was filed until September -- months after the Court's ruling on the partial stay -- and was only considered this week. Those are facts. Period.

It also is a fact, which I noted in my post, which I suggest that you re-read -- that the three liberal justices made clear that they believe the executive order is unconstitutional. I have no doubt that they still are of that view and I think they are correct. But is a a fact --again an undeniable fact -- that when the case was presented to them with a petition for certiorari on the question of the constitutionality of the order, they did not note their dissent to the granting of that petition. Why? I don't know. I'm sure its not because they have doubts about the constitutionality. Indeed, it is hardly unknown for the Court to affirm lower court decisions unanimously even when they've granted cert.

So, once again, the notion that they already had granted cert is simply, unequivocally wrong. They had no opportunity to do so until a petition was filed and that didn't happen until months after the separate, narrow ruling on the partial stay and the issue of nationwide injunctions.

I've read these decisions, and the dissents. I recommend you do the same.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

SCOTUS Sycophant Six plan to tamper with birthright citizenship, otherwise dobleremolque Dec 2025 #1
Pretty sure we all know the answer Endlessmike56 Dec 2025 #2
You're exactly right. PSPS Dec 2025 #7
13th, 14th and 15th are invalid? Retrograde Dec 2025 #13
He'll cite another 17th century Brit jurist wolfie001 Dec 2025 #25
'Executive Orders as Lawmaking' needs to end C_U_L8R Dec 2025 #3
This court, this regime 31st Street Bridge Dec 2025 #4
They are making their move to completely take over our laws bluestarone Dec 2025 #5
Precedence... Republicans say that Hitler did some good things. Norrrm Dec 2025 #6
I have to believe they will rule against Trump iemanja Dec 2025 #8
Impeaching them would just have the Republicans blocking it (nt) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #9
I didn't mean now iemanja Dec 2025 #14
Impeachment needs two thirds in the Senate muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #17
You're probably right. iemanja Dec 2025 #21
Such a ruling would instantly make the court powerless and irrelevant Fiendish Thingy Dec 2025 #11
Has a transition team been assigned for when he, well, you know, croaks. twodogsbarking Dec 2025 #10
Roughly like this? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #12
No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted. onenote Dec 2025 #15
SCOTUS already granted certiorari months ago for the injunction issue (with vociferous dissents from the 3 liberals). SunSeeker Dec 2025 #29
You are mistaken. onenote Dec 2025 #32
It is you who is mistaken. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have flipped. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #33
I'm absolutely, positively not wrong. onenote Dec 2025 #35
Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have not flipped. You are dead wrong in suggesting they did. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #36
Wow. Just wow. onenote Dec 2025 #38
You started this be saying no dissents were noted. What was your point other than to suggest they flipped? SunSeeker Dec 2025 #39
My point was to make clear no one had noted a dissent. Nothing more or less. onenote Dec 2025 #40
So you just made a pointless post. Got it. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #41
And you stand by your lie about when cert was granted. Got it. nt onenote Dec 2025 #43
I didn't lie about when cert was granted. I'm not the one telling lies here. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #44
Yeah you did. onenote Dec 2025 #45
No I didn't. As I said, the prior ruling, with 3 dissents, involved the exact same Executive Order. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #46
You said certiorari had been granted. It hadn't and you have to know that by now. Not even the same case. onenote Dec 2025 #47
The cases are all about the same birthright citizenship EO. It's all a bullshit game by the SCOTUS conservatives. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #48
john brown's body struggle4progress Dec 2025 #16
Battle Cry of Freedom struggle4progress Dec 2025 #18
Marching Through Georgia struggle4progress Dec 2025 #19
Nazi Punks Fuck Off struggle4progress Dec 2025 #20
This is the litmus test case I have been fearing. TomSlick Dec 2025 #22
Originalists, my ass! WTF is there to decide? OMGWTF Dec 2025 #23
While they are at it just give him immunity..............oh yeah the 6 maga POS already did that........... turbinetree Dec 2025 #24
Absolutely disgusting. There is no reason to take up Trump's patently ridiculous argument. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #26
They took this case in order to overturn the law. johnnyfins Dec 2025 #27
It just takes four to agree to take a case Dangling0826 Dec 2025 #28
Asking seriously: which is easier... Shipwack Dec 2025 #30
Expansion is by simple Congressional legislation. Blasphemer Dec 2025 #34
Practical Aspect Considerations DallasNE Dec 2025 #31
Imo, fwiw, which is nothing... lonely bird Dec 2025 #37
These people are partisan political operatives... RetiredParatrooper Dec 2025 #42
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court agrees to d...»Reply #35