In the Montgomery County Schools case today on religious freedom and compulsory LGBTQA&M+QRF instruction in public school, the District Judge denied a preliminary injunction to the parents who brought the case -- asking only that their children be allowed to opt out of the…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 28, 2025

TRM said:

---

https://t.co/dimxvuyZkf pic.twitter.com/wY4d1sfUMu

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) June 27, 2025

---

DOLORES!!!

Logos Stick said:

---

The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?

---

Pretty much, though I don't think it means much in the current cases.

Logos Stick said:

---

The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?

---

Just more of a pita

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

nortex97 said:

---

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

---

The very fact she's in the position she's in when she's clearly out of her depth is just more proof of the death of a civilization.

In Powerful Dissent, Ketanji Brown Jackson Simply Writes 'Wakanda Forever' https://t.co/JJvvUxxmlM pic.twitter.com/8uRoADtvxE

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) June 27, 2025

Is there an auto-pen auto-undo-er?

will25u said:

---

They look so... So... Heartbroken.

You can see the discomfort written all over these CNN panelists’ faces as @ScottJenningsKY rattles off Trump’s wins this week.

“Nope, we’re not tired of winning yet.”

• Supreme Court shot down “universal” injunctions that blocked Trump’s executive orders.
• Supreme Court also… pic.twitter.com/Ld7DJBDORP

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) June 28, 2025

---

Jennings is great. He just rubbed the other commentator's noses in it - in his subtle, cut like a knife way - and the look on their faces was priceless.

ts5641 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

---

The very fact she's in the position she's in when she's clearly out of her depth is just more proof of the death of a civilization.

---

Here's the rough part. She's going to be on the court for 30 more years. Or longer.

The only real hope is that someone like Kagan (who is a bright lawyer and someone she might listen to) takes her aside and coaches her up. They can't fix her lack of legal acumen at this point but at least they can coach her to hire competent clerks who would keep her from writing legal nonsense and coach her to keep her mouth shut. Every time she talks she exposes how unqualified she is. If she shuts up she would at least hide that.

Say what you want about Ginsburg's politics, at least she was damn smart and could engage in discussions.

Secolobo said:

---

Three years ago, Justice Kagan said that “it just can’t be right” that district court judges could issue nation wide injunctions against a President.

Now that Trump is in office, she just voted to keep nation wide injunctions in place.

TOTAL POLITICAL HACK. pic.twitter.com/N22H5zZF4D

— Madison Cawthorn (@CawthornforNC) June 27, 2025

---

Hypocrisy, thy party is Democrat.

Mathguy64 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

---

The very fact she's in the position she's in when she's clearly out of her depth is just more proof of the death of a civilization.

---

Here's the rough part. She's going to be on the court for 30 more years. Or longer.

The only real hope is that someone like Kagan (who is a bright lawyer and someone she might listen to) takes her aside and coaches her up. They can't fix her lack of legal acumen at this point but at least they can coach her to hire competent clerks who would keep her from writing legal nonsense and coach her to keep her mouth shut. Every time she talks she exposes how unqualified she is. If she shuts up she would at least hide that.

Say what you want about Ginsburg's politics, at least she was damn smart and could engage in discussions.

---

A thoughtful, self reflective, earnest, jurist might read this rebuke and be chastened by it. Even approach her peers for advice given that she is the least tenured on the highest bench. Maybe even cut back on her endless expositions in hearings before the Court. Because that's what serious people do. Well (I'll invoke one of Jackson's powerhouse rhetorical flourishes from her dissent) "wait for it", monkeys might fly out of her butt, too. She's a rabid partisan who could care less about upholding the Constitution. Think I'm judging her too harshly by implying she won't change? When at your confirmation hearing you dodge defining "woman" with a limp "I'm not a biologist," you're signaling you can't be taken seriously...And now her peers don't.

Mathguy64 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

---

The very fact she's in the position she's in when she's clearly out of her depth is just more proof of the death of a civilization.

---

Here's the rough part. She's going to be on the court for 30 more years. Or longer.

The only real hope is that someone like Kagan (who is a bright lawyer and someone she might listen to) takes her aside and coaches her up. They can't fix her lack of legal acumen at this point but at least they can coach her to hire competent clerks who would keep her from writing legal nonsense and coach her to keep her mouth shut. Every time she talks she exposes how unqualified she is. If she shuts up she would at least hide that.

Say what you want about Ginsburg's politics, at least she was damn smart and could engage in discussions.

---

DEI hires do not mature over time or with mentoring. She will be a disgrace for a very long time.

Logos Stick said:

---

The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?

---

That's pretty much what the opinion says, but that means they have to put together the class and go through more procedures. They can't just find a friendly liberal district court to grant a rubber stamp on an injunction.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?

---

That's pretty much what the opinion says, but that means they have to put together the class and go through more procedures. They can't just find a friendly liberal district court to grant a rubber stamp on an injunction.

---

takes a lot of effort to file a class action suit.

Quote:

---

takes a lot of effort to file a class action suit.

---

That has always been my understanding from my colleagues who practiced in that area.

Cougar11 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

The Dems on X are saying this changes nothing. They can simply do class action suits to get their injunctions?! Can they?

---

That's pretty much what the opinion says, but that means they have to put together the class and go through more procedures. They can't just find a friendly liberal district court to grant a rubber stamp on an injunction.

---

takes a lot of effort to file a class action suit.

---

Especially when everybody in your "class" has yet to be born.

DANManman said:

---

Feels bad to think the SC is not immune to black fatigue.

At least Thomas is still repping us well. Stays quiet, too!

---

Thomas is not just a credit to black men, he's a national treasure. If only we could have 8 more justices just like him.

It's no harder to file a class action than any other. However, getting a Rule 23 class certified is a different matter (or at least it is supposed to be).

What blows me away about KBJ is that she knew she was going to be called out and refused to amend her dissent. The majority gave her every opportunity to avoid the embarrassment - but she's apparently incapable of embarrassment.

Jackson is a marxist.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

takes a lot of effort to file a class action suit.

---

That has always been my understanding from my colleagues who practiced in that area.

---

I guess we will see if Rule 23(b)(2) becomes an issue because the left will most certainly be seeking injunctive relief, because without it their case isn't even a door stop much less disruptive which is all they want. They don't give a damn about the actual people they are an expendable commodity to them.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

It's no harder to file a class action than any other. However, getting a Rule 23 class certified is a different matter (or at least it is supposed to be).

What blows me away about KBJ is that she knew she was going to be called out and refused to amend her dissent. The majority gave her every opportunity to avoid the embarrassment - but she's apparently incapable of embarrassment.

---

I was assuming the poster I was responding to was talking about the whole process, including getting the class certified. I just still feel like the dems haven't really thought through the long term consequences of certifying a large group of nationwide unborn children as a class for lawsuit purposes. Seems like it would open up their #1 issue ("reproductive freedom") to a nationwide injunction by a single venue shopped district court judge in a lawsuit brought by pro-life activists.

Looks like illegals will be legal in some states and illegal in others, the SC is going to have to decide this once and for all or our states legal docket is going to be round the clock working on birthright citizenship cases.

Burpelson said:

---

Looks like illegals will be legal in some states and illegal in others, the SC is going to have to decide this once and for all or our states legal docket is going to be round the clock working on birthright citizenship cases.

---

The absurdity of even the thought that scenario could even be considered is off the scale. States don't decide citizenship only the United States can do that. The fact that the Feds allow these blue states even claim they're sanctuary states is absurd. Start arresting them for obstruction and let the chips fall. They want to tie up the federal dockets well let's just tie them up with actual arrests for violating federal laws

Burpelson said:

---

Looks like illegals will be legal in some states and illegal in others, the SC is going to have to decide this once and for all or our states legal docket is going to be round the clock working on birthright citizenship cases.

---

That is one possibility, if a state is a party. And then such an incongruous result creates an Equal Protection type of argument. Where the mother lives? Where a child is subsequently born still within the US?

Last week's decision was still a very big decision in a lot of respects but it will be next term before they can get to the merits of what the 14th does and doesn't mean.

I also think KBJ knows how that decision on the merits is likely to go and that is why she threw her hissy fit and didn't back down even knowing the majority would blast her for it.

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Looks like illegals will be legal in some states and illegal in others, the SC is going to have to decide this once and for all or our states legal docket is going to be round the clock working on birthright citizenship cases.

---

The absurdity of even the thought that scenario could even be considered is off the scale. States don't decide citizenship only the United States can do that. The fact that the Feds allow these blue states even claim they're sanctuary states is absurd. Start arresting them for obstruction and let the chips fall. They want to tie up the federal dockets well let's just tie them up with actual arrests for violating federal laws

---

100%.

aggiehawg said:

---

Burpelson said:

---

Looks like illegals will be legal in some states and illegal in others, the SC is going to have to decide this once and for all or our states legal docket is going to be round the clock working on birthright citizenship cases.

---

That is one possibility, if a state is a party. And then such an incongruous result creates an Equal Protection type of argument. Where the mother lives? Where a child is subsequently born still within the US?

Last week's decision was still a very big decision in a lot of respects but it will be next term before they can get to the merits of what the 14th does and doesn't mean.

I also think KBJ knows how that decision on the merits is likely to go and that is why she threw her hissy fit and didn't back down even knowing the majority would blast her for it.

---

I don't give her credit for being so well informed as to a real case/matter that was not before the court yet.

The citizenship for illegals who are born here should follow the settled law though, as it took an act of congress to grant Indians born here citizenship. There's no act giving illegal aliens today more rights than native Americans back a hundred years ago, and it's not that hard to change that if congress/POTUS want to change that.

ts5641 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

First time I've seen the phrase, “Wait for it” in a SCOTUS ruling.

What is she writing, a judicial dissent, or an article for MSNBC? pic.twitter.com/FO3yQZwSHb

— ArthurinCali (@ArthurReturnss) June 27, 2025

"Wait for it". LOL. Again, not even bright enough to hire competent clerks, or allow them even if so to edit her magnificent thoughts into something resembling a judicial opinion.

---

The very fact she's in the position she's in when she's clearly out of her depth is just more proof of the death of a civilization.

---

Black girl magic

Quote:

---

I don't give her credit for being so well informed as to a real case/matter that was not before the court yet.

The citizenship for illegals who are born here should follow the settled law though, as it took an act of congress to grant Indians born here citizenship. There's no act giving illegal aliens today more rights than native Americans back a hundred years ago, and it's not that hard to change that if congress/POTUS want to change that.

---

I think Wong Kim Ark can be easily distinguished and ACB showed that pathway for same in her majority opinion.