Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

Basically everything Biden tried to do - ban noncompete agreements, student debt forgiveness, cracking down on payday lenders, etc etc etc - was immediately blocked by nationwide injunctions from the Fifth Circuit. Next Dem president may have just been unshackled.

So IF we have a another Democratic President this would immediately be reversed. Admittedly my legal knowledge on precedent and well now, SCOTUS just whatever the fuck they want is muddled.

Idk about this country anymore.

[Xyonai]

Basically everything Biden tried to do - ban noncompete agreements, student debt forgiveness, cracking down on payday lenders, etc etc etc - was immediately blocked by nationwide injunctions from the Fifth Circuit. Next Dem president may have just been unshackled.

So IF we have a another Democratic President this would immediately be reversed. Admittedly my legal knowledge on precedent and well now, SCOTUS just whatever the fuck they want is muddled.

Idk about this country anymore.

Yeah I entirely expect that as soon as a Dem tries this, they'll get sued and the courts will carve out some kind of oddly specific yet totally transparent exception that only effects stuff Dems would want to do.

[Gorsameth]

i don't think republicans realize just how much this will hamstring future efforts they've relied upon if it's upheld consistently

also, what's the point of federal judges if their orders are apparently purely limited to their districts? only scotus orders apply nationwide in this regard?

sure seems like an unprecedented legal setup to me, and one that would have largely invalidated decades of legal precedent and allowed for a whole lot of things that were previously blocked

this is basically anarchy lmao, if you want to stop judge shopping you can do so without hamstringing the entire non-scotus federal judiciary

the fuck does no kings have to do with fucking federal district court judges, who have always been overruled by the scotus or appeals courts? man, the dishonest attempts to weaponize liberal shit in bad faith is really bad. just lacks any creativity or imagination

Laws exist to bind but not protect the out group and protect but not bind the in group.

Lets not pretend this SC would not do a complete 180 on identical cases based on which group the defendant belongs to.

[Edge-]

Laws exist to bind but not protect the out group and protect but not bind the in group.

Lets not pretend this SC would not do a complete 180 on identical cases based on which group the defendant belongs to.

it's very funny to me that this is being presented as a solution to conservative legal groups weaponizing judge shopping as if this is an actual solution or a positive change. i mean, it stops it, but as with everything in trump world it does it in the dumbest, most inefficient and stupid way possible

[Xath]

Based on what I read, it seems more like a personal power grab by the Supreme Court away from the lower courts. They are basically saying they must always have the final say on national issues that get challenged in court. In effect, it will end up creating an even more unhinged administration, but they gave up none of their personal power.

They already had final say but something can no longer be paused nationwide. Trump could decree tomorrow that every house must fly a Trump flag or lose ownership of their land and it would have to be brought to 94 different district courts to be paused nationwide.

[tehdang]

It would also apply to immigration!!

If the next dem candidate is pro immigration he can simply have those policies be respected by California regardless of what Texas thinks. Same with student loan forgiveness and whatnot.

SCOTUS remanded to lower courts on state lawsuits and potential narrower injunctions. The argument is that a state suffers administrative and financial harms from children moving cross-state. See syllabus.

Also be aware that courts can find executive actions unconstitutional in legal holdings. So you’re only right in a temporary sense. Immigration and student loan actions can still be found unconstitutional.

[SAY HER NAME]

A bit of a side on this but its looking like the Senates version of the BBB is going to explode the deficit even more

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-re...-trillion-debt

On net and including interest, the Senate bill as it stands would increase borrowing by $500 billion to $1.2 trillion more than the House bill – by $3.5 to $4.2 trillion over ten years, as opposed to $3.0 trillion. Possible changes could further increase the debt impact to $4.5 trillion – $1.5 trillion above the House.

And this estimates are deffo undercounted as its assuming that no economic downturns occur!!!

[Edge-]

A bit of a side on this but its looking like the Senates version of the BBB is going to explode the deficit even more

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-re...-trillion-debt



And this estimates are deffo undercounted as its assuming that no economic downturns occur!!!

damn, republicans borrowing and spending like drunken sailors

whatever happened to the national debt clock lmao

[gondrin]

A bit of a side on this but its looking like the Senates version of the BBB is going to explode the deficit even more

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-re...-trillion-debt



And this estimates are deffo undercounted as its assuming that no economic downturns occur!!!

There is a reason why outside of a very few outliers, there has been nobody in Congress that has ever not wanted to spend. It was a matter of on what. The last person that I can think of that was all about trying to not spend anything was Ron Paul. Everyone else, from his son Rand, to pretty much the rest of the "fiscal conservative" crowd are about as fiscally conservative as a raging alcoholic is from abstaining from drinking.

- - - Updated - - -

damn, republicans borrowing and spending like drunken sailors

whatever happened to the national debt clock lmao

No republican that supports Trump can say anything about the debt. Not because of this but because Trump is the self-proclaimed king of debt. You cannot be against debt and turn around and support someone who literally sees debt as a tool to use and then discard when it becomes inconvenient.

[Edge-]

No republican that supports Trump can say anything about the debt. Not because of this but because Trump is the self-proclaimed king of debt. You cannot be against debt and turn around and support someone who literally sees debt as a tool to use and then discard when it becomes inconvenient.

democrats should ask republicans if they can borrow their debt clock

[Moralgy]

Did they rule on birthright ot buck it until someone sues specifically for it.

[Xyonai]

Did they rule on birthright ot buck it until someone sues specifically for it.

Bucked it until their next session in October, from the sounds of it.

[david0925]

The worst part about the bill prior to its Senate version was that they try to frontload all the benefit and backload all the borrowing so that they are very self aware that this will blow up the economy, so they want to blame it on whoever is in power after they've left.

Let's see how much of "the world cannot let the US default" will still hold in due time. With how fragile and speculative the current global economy is, combined with how interest payment for debt has skyrocketed (tripled) since 2020. As soon as US defaults, we are going into a natioanl/global depression.

[Gorsameth]

The worst part about the bill prior to its Senate version was that they try to frontload all the benefit and backload all the borrowing so that they are very self aware that this will blow up the economy, so they want to blame it on whoever is in power after they've left.

Let's see how much of "the world cannot let the US default" will still hold in due time. With how fragile and speculative the current global economy is, combined with how interest payment for debt has skyrocketed (tripled) since 2020. As soon as US defaults, we are going into a natioanl/global depression.

US debt is held in US dollars.
The US can always service their own debt, because they can just print money to pay it. That it would rapidly devalue the dollar doesn't matter for the debt when that debt is in dollars.

[SAY HER NAME]

US debt is held in US dollars.
The US can always service their own debt, because they can just print money to pay it. That it would rapidly devalue the dollar doesn't matter for the debt when that debt is in dollars.

This is true but it bares saying that a shitload of americans own assets in US debt, in fact most funds and banks have US debt as a way to store wealth in liquid form.

If you inflate the value of the dollar you are basically wiping out the savings of people. Those people will not be appreciative of that to say the least lol

[Gorsameth]

This is true but it bares saying that a shitload of americans own assets in US debt, in fact most funds and banks have US debt as a way to store wealth in liquid form.

If you inflate the value of the dollar you are basically wiping out the savings of people. Those people will not be appreciative of that to say the least lol

Sure, but if it gets to that point America is already beyond fucked anyway (and dragging the rest of the world down with it)

[postman1782]

“#NoKings” also applies to district court judges, as per the majority of justices on the Supreme Court. As Barrett plus 5 tell Justice Jackson, “[she] decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Let’s see if the lower courts can handle ruling on the cases before them instead of being used as judge-shopping venues for groups to craft national policy.

No it doesn't. IT IS THEIR FUCKING JOB TO RULE ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS.

- - - Updated - - -

Basically everything Biden tried to do - ban noncompete agreements, student debt forgiveness, cracking down on payday lenders, etc etc etc - was immediately blocked by nationwide injunctions from the Fifth Circuit. Next Dem president may have just been unshackled.

So IF we have a another Democratic President this would immediately be reversed. Admittedly my legal knowledge on precedent and well now, SCOTUS just whatever the fuck they want is muddled.

Idk about this country anymore.

Good, Democrats can just abolish the 2nd amendment and Republicans can't do anything about it.

[Edge-]

https://oaklandside.org/2025/06/27/w...mount-theatre/

DHS ends a contract with a historic location in Oakland, CA, for naturalization ceremonies and moves it in-house.

Why is this here?

According to the USA Spending website, a U.S. government database for tracking government spending, the Department of Homeland Security had a $276,000 contract with the Paramount Theatre for “the rental of a venue to host monthly naturalization ceremonies.” The theater only received $46,000 before the government abruptly cancelled the contract on March 13.

Because, much like Donald's campaign, the government doesn't pay its obligations anymore.

Great work, Secretary Puppykiller.

[Doomcookie]

Orders are too broad a term. Under consideration here are just universal injunctions.

They are capable of being overruled, as you’ve just seen them done now! It’s a larger form of overruling, seeing as how the multiplying universal injunctions have been improperly considered. I don’t want to repeat the entire Supreme Court reasoning on why this restraint is appropriate, so I refer you to the syllabus (when you say decades of legal precedent, it incorporates centuries of legal precedent, so you might enjoy the read). It already considers how a state lawsuit may bring up more widespread relief, and instructs the lower courts to hear arguments for that. It expressly does not rule on the subject.

Why does it bother you when a court rules that a Nazi is infringing up-on the civil rights of Americans?

- - - Updated - - -

First, this should absolutely be cheered as limiting conservative legal groups from pursuing a strategy of universal injunctions via forum shopping. Secondly, Trump is again wrong in prognosticating a victory in the case. It is a PARTIAL STAY of an INJUNCTION.

It does not reach the merits of the case at all. It doesn’t even decide the full case, since some of it is directly passed back down for further argument.

The injunction was to protect civil rights.

Why do you hate civil rights?

[Edge-]

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/g-s1-...godfrey-ruling

A federal judge has struck down President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey, delivering the latest in a series of legal wins for firms that have challenged the president's punitive campaign against Big Law.

The ruling Friday from U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan marks the fourth time out of four that a federal judge has permanently blocked one of Trump's executive orders seeking to punish an elite law firm.

Judge AliKhan said in her ruling that the executive order against Susman Godfrey "is unconstitutional from beginning to end."

"Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," she wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined."

Donald, a petty authoritarian supported by the Republican party, has a fourth judge rule that his EO targeting law firms for "doing their jobs in a way he didn't like" is unconstitutional. A phrase we hear a lot in regards to Donald and Republicans in general.