\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Jackson's dissent would also do away with laws regarding standing, advisory opin

It's hard to express how insane this thing is if you read it...
manic pixie dream litigator
  06/29/25
Does your opinion change when the context is the injunctions...
habeas penem
  06/29/25
Could you rephrase that as a semantically cogent comment or ...
manic pixie dream litigator
  06/29/25
If this were about the nationwide injunction for EO 14042, w...
habeas penem
  06/29/25
(justice Jackson, demanding I write an advisory opinion addr...
manic pixie dream litigator
  06/29/25
...
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
  06/29/25
nah mang, the lawyering's over on this one. But every justic...
habeas penem
  06/29/25
If anything, the Biden case would have been a stronger argum...
manic pixie dream litigator
  06/29/25
EO 14042 was not about providing the vaccine to anyone. Ever...
habeas penem
  06/29/25
Neither of you read the actual SCOTUS opinion[s] on this
https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK
  06/29/25
if political decisions are a concern, maybe politics should ...
peeface
  06/29/25
i legit thought it was an xo joke that she got the position ...
i gave my cousin head
  06/29/25
Here is what a normal lib professor says about Jackson's dis...
this moniker is available for lease, rent, or sale
  06/29/25
...
cannon
  06/29/25
...
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
  06/29/25
...
peeface
  06/29/25
last sentence is ljl
manic pixie dream litigator
  06/29/25
i could imagine KBJ and her clerks getting worked up with TD...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  06/29/25
Jackson was such a retarded pick. She’d be fine as the...
....,,....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.......,.,.,.,.,..,.
  06/29/25
Isn't this all pedantic procedural bullshit? There's no m...
........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,
  06/29/25
I agree The conservative scotus members are cowards who w...
I'm 5'5, 200lbs on purpose
  06/29/25


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 9:29 AM
Author: manic pixie dream litigator

It's hard to express how insane this thing is if you read it as an actual legal document as opposed to a snappy blog post

"What, really, is this system for protect-

ing people’s rights if it amounts to this placing the onus on the victims to invoke the law’s protection, and rendering the very institution that has the singular function of ensuring compliance with the Constitution powerless to prevent the Government from violating it?"

"Allowing the Executive to violate the law at its prerogative with respect to anyone who has not yet sued carves out a huge exception..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057710)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 9:46 AM
Author: habeas penem

Does your opinion change when the context is the injunctions against Biden's vaccine mandates?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057738)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 9:52 AM
Author: manic pixie dream litigator

Could you rephrase that as a semantically cogent comment or question? Feel free to use Google translate if necessary. Thanks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057756)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 9:58 AM
Author: habeas penem

If this were about the nationwide injunction for EO 14042, would you have the same analysis?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057778)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:02 AM
Author: manic pixie dream litigator

(justice Jackson, demanding I write an advisory opinion addressing a hypothetical case)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057788)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:05 AM
Author: Thank you for your attention to this matter! (✅🍑)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057795)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:15 AM
Author: habeas penem

nah mang, the lawyering's over on this one. But every justice involved would have written the opposite opinion on the Biden EO injunction. You're scholarshiping about a political decision in fancy legal dress

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057834)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:26 AM
Author: manic pixie dream litigator

If anything, the Biden case would have been a stronger argument against universal injunctions because the vast majority of federal employees were craving the vaccine, and were craving to put their boots on the neck of the minority vax resistors.

This is one reason why doctrines like standing and advisory opinion exist and why the remedy should be limited to the parties. "It's all fake and political" is just a lib cope

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057874)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:43 AM
Author: habeas penem

EO 14042 was not about providing the vaccine to anyone. Everyone who wanted the vaccine had already gotten it from Walgreens. EO 14042 was about making federal contractors with more than 100 employees fire all those minority vax resistors. The universal injunction saved their jobs, and was 100% justified.

Let me break it down for you: when President Newsom mandates forced national ass-play hour in 2030, random conservative judges in the judiciary are going to have a harder time stopping it.

The Justices had to do something about these national injunctions, which were getting out of hand -- partly due to recent executive overreach, starting with Obama -- but this was a lurch to the other side rather than a correction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057908)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 1:12 PM
Author: https://imgur.com/a/o2g8xYK


Neither of you read the actual SCOTUS opinion[s] on this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058205)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 12:10 PM
Author: peeface

if political decisions are a concern, maybe politics should be returned to the two political branches to decide



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058065)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:28 AM
Author: i gave my cousin head

i legit thought it was an xo joke that she got the position back in the day

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057878)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:43 AM
Author: this moniker is available for lease, rent, or sale

Here is what a normal lib professor says about Jackson's dissent.

"If one rejects judicial supremacy, Jackson's opinion is hard to read (speaking as someone who genuinely likes her writing). She accepts, without defending, that "the law" is whatever one district court says it is and the executive acts in a lawless manner by acting inconsistent with that judicial determination. So it begs multiple questions throughout in speaking of the law, and disobeying the law, and what things are blatantly unconstitutional, without explaining who decides any of this.

Jackson offers two lines that are nonsensical. 1) The judicial power is especially great with respect to suits against the executive--except all constitutional litigation runs against the executive (or a non-executive officer performing an executive function). 2) Concern for "blatantly unconstitutional" laws. But constitutional invalidity is like pregnancy--you cannot have just a little bit of it. And she never explains when invalidity crosses that line into "blatancy." Ironically, she offers an example--an executive who orders incarceration of his political foes--that fails on its own procedural terms; that challenge would sound in habeas (if they seek release from custody) and not an EpY action for any sort of injunction, universal or otherwise."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057909)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:44 AM
Author: cannon



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057914)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 10:45 AM
Author: Thank you for your attention to this matter! (✅🍑)



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49057916)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 12:08 PM
Author: peeface



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058059)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 12:17 PM
Author: manic pixie dream litigator

last sentence is ljl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058095)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 12:24 PM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


i could imagine KBJ and her clerks getting worked up with TDS and instinctively reaching for a hypo where Trump starts jailing opponents.

interesting, though, that Dems were the ones who brought bullshit criminal charges against Trump.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058107)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 12:41 PM
Author: ....,,....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.......,.,.,.,.,..,.


Jackson was such a retarded pick. She’d be fine as the 5th Dem since nothing would matter except her vote. But the Dems now have to rely entirely on Kagan to pick off two votes.

Even the dumbest Sotomayor dissent doesn’t come close to this one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058149)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 1:05 PM
Author: ........,,,,,,......,.,.,.,,,,,,,,,,


Isn't this all pedantic procedural bullshit?

There's no more universal injunctions - instead there will just be a class action lawsuit and the injunction will apply to the entire class?

Her "opinion" is stupid but the majority opinion to me is the Supreme Court at its worst. They're holding is basically, "the court can't do this anymore" - but they don't really set forth a workable solution to the fact that presidents are passing these laws, and the Supreme Court isn't going to weigh in on if these greatly important topics are constituional or not for about 3 years.

I get that the Supreme Court doesn't want to make laws, but seems like they should fill in the gaps to this obvious problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058193)



Reply Favorite

Date: June 29th, 2025 1:09 PM
Author: I'm 5'5, 200lbs on purpose

I agree

The conservative scotus members are cowards who want to do as little as possible to avert immediate disaster and nothing more. They just want to keep kicking the can indefinitely and make the onus of power and responsibility someone else's problem

These are people tasked with the highest responsibility of leading and directing a deteriorating civilization spiraling toward civil war. If you aren't up to the task, get the fuck off the bench and give your spot to someone who is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744323&forum_id=2#49058203)