jfc did you not learn English grammar in your ESL classes in Chongqing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744570&forum_id=2Reputation#49060063)

The problems with universal injunctions are:

(1) non-reciprocity (different plaintiffs can keep suing and losing, but if the US loses once, it's bound) -- the US lost every single one of these suits below;

(2) forum shopping, which compounds the problem of point #1 -- most of these suits were stuck being filed in border states;

(3) the availability of a nationally binding rule from scotus (obviating the need for a nationally binding injunction at the district court level) -- because the US always lost, it just didn't take up the case on appeal, so no scotus case law will ever get created if the US just knows that said case law will inevitably be bad (as would be the case with a policy that's flagrantly unconstitutional): this was literally true of the instant case, where the US lost on everything below, but elected to only seek cert on the nationwide-injunction question, and not the merits of the EO;

(4) the availability of at least Circuit-binding rules from the COAs -- SG showed up at OA and surprised everyone by saying for the first time "yeah we usually respect circuit court precedent within that circuit, but that's a discretionary policy and we don't always follow it" (obviously the guy has something specific in mind, because that's a real inconvenient time to soften this policy);

(5) "a single district judge overruling the potus" -- I think this (meaning the merits of the EO) turned out to be like a 17-0 vote of different district and circuit judges (20-0 if you count the scotus dissenters, who were not shy about expressing their thoughts on the merits).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744570&forum_id=2Reputation#49060796)

My understanding is that even that position was a minority view in the pre-2015 scholarship -- which, btw, can we all agree is the only scholarship that can be trusted on this shit, as any lib law professor writing on this issue in 2019 might as well be delivering a crying screed on MSNBC -- but it looks good af in comparison.

If scotus gives us that, at least senate dems will know that if they ever pull the trigger and eliminate the filibuster then they'll need to squeeze every last bit of hard work out of their housekeepers and nannies in the next 2 years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5744570&forum_id=2Reputation#49060827)