The Injunction Ban, Explained

1. 

   @LeejaMiller

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   📰 Go to https://ground.news/Leeja to stay fully informed on US Politics and see all sides of every story. Subscribe through my link for 40% off for unlimited access on the Vantage plan.
   😅 Thank you for your patience during the camera focus issues in this video. Literally every tech issue has befallen me today, IN THIS ECONOMY, and I appreciate your grace as I attempt to wade through the procedural sludge of this regime.

2. 

   @jonathankaplan5845

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   it's pronounced VAY-CAY-TER

3. 

   @MargaritaCampos-o7r

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   DONALD TRUMP ITS
   COMBERTIDO
   AMERICA EN UN
   DESIERTO QUÉ LO
   COBETIRAN EN
   NOPALES Y CAUTOAS
   NASIENDO EMBES
   DE TENER
   EMIGRANTES QUE
   BIENEN EMBUSCA
   DE TRABAJOS Y NO
   PARA ROBAR .

4. 

   @MargaritaCampos-o7r

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   THANKS FOR ALL
   INFORMATION
   YOUR GAVE ABAUT
   LAWS CHENGIN .

   THIS ITS JUST
   COMENTS .
   AFTER ALL THESE
   LAWS ITS CHENGIN
   IM NOT BILIBE THE
   PEOPLE ARE
   WISHING TO
   CAMING TO EEUU
   ANYMORE. 😢😮
   😢😮😢😮😢😢😢
   NOT UNE WILL BE
   WHANS TO CAMING
   IN THE EEUU .

   BECAUSE AFTER
   THIS CHENGIN ITS
   NOTHING GOOD
   FOR CAMING
   ANYMORE
   😢😮😮😮😮

5. 

   @MABDIDIT

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   Shout out to the white ppl yall are great !

6. 

   @lifeasrini

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   For a country that fought a whole war to not have a King, it really does seem like some Americans really want a King. But only if he's on their side.

   Weird that SCOTUS never said they had no authority over POTUS when it was Biden, or Obama or Clinton 🤔

7. 

   @BL8DM8N

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   And to think this is all just because she's blonde & blue eyed. If she looked exactly the same but with dark hair & eyes, all the men praising her as the "pinnacle of aryan beauty" today would instead say she's "mid" or even "dysgenic". Actual genetic quality doesn't matter to conservatives, only surface level appearances.

8. 

   @dawnpalmby5100

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   Commonwealth countries dont even abide be a "1700s English law". Im not surprised they would want to compare to the time of king George, probably one of the fucking worst kings in history

9. 

   @anniefitzgerald81

   August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

   42:56 I resent the misuse of lofi music used in this post. Plus, don't they know how to mix audio? Tik Tok makes it pretty easy to do. 😂

10. 

    @vaunniethayer1484

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Conservative Christians are also very good at cherry picking when it comes to the Bible , so the constitution shouldn’t present a problem.

11. 

    @scpatl4now

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Positive news from today, the lower court reinstated the national injunction based on class action status.

12. 

    @slimdifference08

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    12:04 this is what happens when we appoint justices who are schooled in creative ways to interpret the law that allow them to use it to their benefit. I'm referring here specifically to the Federalist society.

13. 

    @JustAverageJeff

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    No more 2 party system, it's all corrupt and we need to clean house.

14. 

    @altrag

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    They uphold the constitution just high enough to get a flame under it.

15. 

    @Troll-x8p4e

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    There’s no such thing as injunctive relief for non-plaintiffs. It’s simple.

16. 

    @TB13AI

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    So an association eg, united citizens of America. 1$ fee, and then a lawyer can sue on behalf of all members having their constitutional rights messed with?

17. 

    @damarissanchez7678

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    I love how he throws the father citizenship in there to cover his ass when it comes to Baron

18. 

    @RobertJacobucci

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Most countries in the world define citzenship of the child at birth according to the status of the parents. At least one parent needs to be a citzen or permanet resident. US law accidentally acts as honey pot. Sneek into the country and have a child. The child is legal but the parents aren't. This creates a dilema for law enforcement authories. This loop hole should have been fixed years ago. The issue has nothing to do with President Trump.

19. 

    @Stephen-ef9jk

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    A final safe guard established by our founders is the every two year elections. Again, our polarization has dampened its effectiveness but if the lack of judicial restraints leads to massive legislature or executive over reach then a backlash at the voter box can be expected. Many citizens felt that the killing of unborn children under the umbrella of privacy was a SCOTUS over reach. It took decades and 10's of thousands of dead unborn children but ultimately a Trump presidency and republican senate led us where we are today. Sometime in the future a new SCOTUS may over rule many of todays judgements and put back in place the rules you feel were unjustly interpreted.

20. 

    @Stephen-ef9jk

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Nixon famously said, "I can not violate the law, I am the law." Congress disproved that by visiting the oval office and informing Nixon that the votes existed to remove him from office if he didn't step down.

21. 

    @Stephen-ef9jk

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    While it has been shown to be ineffective; the constitution does have a means to enforce law abidance on the executive branch. It's called impeachment. If the President commits high crimes or misdemeanors, as defined by the congress, he/she can be removed from office. The president is also an executor or law as he/she sees fit. If the President says birth right citizenship only applies to individuals who owes allegiance to the US and that denies illegally present individuals or those who arrive on a two week vacation with intent to have their child then return to their country of origin. ; congress can pass a bill that clarifies their definition. The president may veto and the congress can override. They can also seek a constitutional amendment to be more clear, a task equally improbable but legally doable.

22. 

    @be1tube

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    The logical consequence of this ruling is that laws or executive orders should not be followed until 1.5 years have elapsed. Since the law or order cannot be reliably judicially reviewed before that time, a citizen cannot know whether it is constitutional or not. Thus, to maintain our constitutional system, we are obligated to follow only those laws that have had sufficient time for challenges that we can be reasonably confident in their constitutionality. We know that earlier laws were reviewed. So we should follow those until we know that the new ones have stood the test of time. This applies to the congressional budget as well.

23. 

    @rickpearson7943

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    Theyre reverting back to law before the U.S. existed, when we were colonies under the rule of a king BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY WANT-A KING. No, literally, they want a dictator. A king is just a hereditary dictator. They want to overthrow the U.S. government to impose a Christian theocracy. Im not exaggerating. Justice Alito has even flown a flag on his own house that represents doing just that.

24. 

    @siohe

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    These inferior tyrannical black robes have no power over the executive as it is not part of the Co-equal branch of government. Only the supreme court has that power.

25. 

    @stephenclark9917

    August 23, 2025 at 11:55 am

    God bless King Donald, first of his name, and the Prince Baron.

Comments are closed.