Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(45,920 posts)
38. Wow. Just wow.
Sat Dec 6, 2025, 12:22 PM
6 hrs ago

I'm not sure why you keep misstating not only the facts but also my posts. Let's review.

My first post simply stated in its entirety that "No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted." That is an undeniably true statement.

You responded by claiming that "SCOTUS already granted cert months ago." That is an undeniably untrue statement since no petition for cert was even filed until late September.

I explained why you were mistaken in my next post, but went on to clarify that the three liberal justices not only had dissented from the grant of a partial stay, but also had "made it clear that they believed the executive order was unconstitutional" and, for good measure, I added that I think they still adhere to that view.

Notwithstanding my having, I thought, clarified where I believe the three liberal stand notwithstanding the absence of any dissents to the grant of cert, you came back with a post that essentially reiterated what I had said, but somehow construed what I said as saying the opposite.

So I tried again, posting that "I have no doubt that the three justices are of the view that the executive order is unconstitutional" and that I think they are correct. I also indicated that I don't know why they didn't note a dissent to the grant of cert, but that its not uncommon for justices to support cert even when they believe the lower court ruling is correct.

I would have thought that would end it, but instead, you have invented out of whole cloth the semi-libelous claim that I've suggested that the three justices have "flipped" on whether birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. But then again you still haven't conceded that cert wasn't actually granted with respect to these cases until this week, not months ago as you have claimed

Facts matter, my friend.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

SCOTUS Sycophant Six plan to tamper with birthright citizenship, otherwise dobleremolque Yesterday #1
Pretty sure we all know the answer Endlessmike56 Yesterday #2
You're exactly right. PSPS Yesterday #7
13th, 14th and 15th are invalid? Retrograde Yesterday #13
He'll cite another 17th century Brit jurist wolfie001 23 hrs ago #25
'Executive Orders as Lawmaking' needs to end C_U_L8R Yesterday #3
This court, this regime 31st Street Bridge Yesterday #4
They are making their move to completely take over our laws bluestarone Yesterday #5
Precedence... Republicans say that Hitler did some good things. Norrrm Yesterday #6
I have to believe they will rule against Trump iemanja Yesterday #8
Impeaching them would just have the Republicans blocking it (nt) muriel_volestrangler Yesterday #9
I didn't mean now iemanja Yesterday #14
Impeachment needs two thirds in the Senate muriel_volestrangler Yesterday #17
You're probably right. iemanja Yesterday #21
Such a ruling would instantly make the court powerless and irrelevant Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #11
Has a transition team been assigned for when he, well, you know, croaks. twodogsbarking Yesterday #10
Roughly like this? muriel_volestrangler Yesterday #12
No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted. onenote Yesterday #15
SCOTUS already granted certiorari months ago for the injunction issue (with vociferous dissents from the 3 liberals). SunSeeker 22 hrs ago #29
You are mistaken. onenote 19 hrs ago #32
It is you who is mistaken. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have flipped. SunSeeker 18 hrs ago #33
I'm absolutely, positively not wrong. onenote 18 hrs ago #35
Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have not flipped. You are dead wrong in suggesting they did. nt SunSeeker 18 hrs ago #36
Wow. Just wow. onenote 6 hrs ago #38
john brown's body struggle4progress Yesterday #16
Battle Cry of Freedom struggle4progress Yesterday #18
Marching Through Georgia struggle4progress Yesterday #19
Nazi Punks Fuck Off struggle4progress Yesterday #20
This is the litmus test case I have been fearing. TomSlick Yesterday #22
Originalists, my ass! WTF is there to decide? OMGWTF Yesterday #23
While they are at it just give him immunity..............oh yeah the 6 maga POS already did that........... turbinetree 23 hrs ago #24
Absolutely disgusting. There is no reason to take up Trump's patently ridiculous argument. SunSeeker 23 hrs ago #26
They took this case in order to overturn the law. johnnyfins 23 hrs ago #27
It just takes four to agree to take a case Dangling0826 22 hrs ago #28
Asking seriously: which is easier... Shipwack 21 hrs ago #30
Expansion is by simple Congressional legislation. Blasphemer 18 hrs ago #34
Practical Aspect Considerations DallasNE 20 hrs ago #31
Imo, fwiw, which is nothing... lonely bird 7 hrs ago #37
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court agrees to d...»Reply #38