Will Chamberlain

And the All Writs Act, which is the basis on which they exercise, they tried to give this injunction, it only allows you to issue writs in aid of your underlying jurisdiction. If there was never a lower court opinion, then what's going to the Supreme Court is so-called original jurisdiction.

And the All Writs Act, which is the basis on which they exercise, they tried to give this injunction, it only allows you to issue writs in aid of your underlying jurisdiction. If there was never a lower court opinion, then what's going to the Supreme Court is so-called original jurisdiction.

And the All Writs Act, which is the basis on which they exercise, they tried to give this injunction, it only allows you to issue writs in aid of your underlying jurisdiction. If there was never a lower court opinion, then what's going to the Supreme Court is so-called original jurisdiction.

And we know if you're a lawyer and you remember your con law, that's for like when a state is litigating against another state, the Supreme Court hears the case in the first instance. But that's it. So, I mean, it's a brazen error procedurally.

And we know if you're a lawyer and you remember your con law, that's for like when a state is litigating against another state, the Supreme Court hears the case in the first instance. But that's it. So, I mean, it's a brazen error procedurally.

And we know if you're a lawyer and you remember your con law, that's for like when a state is litigating against another state, the Supreme Court hears the case in the first instance. But that's it. So, I mean, it's a brazen error procedurally.

And, you know, all this talk, I mean, my basic understanding of what actually happened here is that the ACLU spazzed out and then the Supreme Court took them at their word. And the ACLU did all sorts of crazy litigation stuff. Like they went to the district court, told them they had 42 minutes to get their opinion out before we go to the appellate court and treat it as a constructive denial. Right.

And, you know, all this talk, I mean, my basic understanding of what actually happened here is that the ACLU spazzed out and then the Supreme Court took them at their word. And the ACLU did all sorts of crazy litigation stuff. Like they went to the district court, told them they had 42 minutes to get their opinion out before we go to the appellate court and treat it as a constructive denial. Right.

And, you know, all this talk, I mean, my basic understanding of what actually happened here is that the ACLU spazzed out and then the Supreme Court took them at their word. And the ACLU did all sorts of crazy litigation stuff. Like they went to the district court, told them they had 42 minutes to get their opinion out before we go to the appellate court and treat it as a constructive denial. Right.

The district court didn't rule. It only had 40 minutes. They went to the appellate court, did the same thing, and went to the Supreme Court.

The district court didn't rule. It only had 40 minutes. They went to the appellate court, did the same thing, and went to the Supreme Court.

The district court didn't rule. It only had 40 minutes. They went to the appellate court, did the same thing, and went to the Supreme Court.

Yeah. And I'm also at the point where I just simply don't believe what the lawyers for immigrant, you know, the plaintiffs in these cases say anymore. Like I have a default skepticism of what they say. So, you know, maybe they say, oh, this is why the bus is turned around.

Yeah. And I'm also at the point where I just simply don't believe what the lawyers for immigrant, you know, the plaintiffs in these cases say anymore. Like I have a default skepticism of what they say. So, you know, maybe they say, oh, this is why the bus is turned around.

Yeah. And I'm also at the point where I just simply don't believe what the lawyers for immigrant, you know, the plaintiffs in these cases say anymore. Like I have a default skepticism of what they say. So, you know, maybe they say, oh, this is why the bus is turned around.

I would point out that, well, you seem to know who your plaintiffs were and who got these notices, which means they got notice and had time to file the habeas petition, which is exactly what the Supreme Court demanded in the opinion that came out a couple of weeks ago.

I would point out that, well, you seem to know who your plaintiffs were and who got these notices, which means they got notice and had time to file the habeas petition, which is exactly what the Supreme Court demanded in the opinion that came out a couple of weeks ago.

I would point out that, well, you seem to know who your plaintiffs were and who got these notices, which means they got notice and had time to file the habeas petition, which is exactly what the Supreme Court demanded in the opinion that came out a couple of weeks ago.

Yeah, I think so. Because I don't think that The judiciary is competent to determine when there has been a predatory incursion or a military invasion. They have no intelligence services. They have no military. They don't know what the president knows. So in every other context where that's the case, the amount of deference given to the executive is massive.

Yeah, I think so. Because I don't think that The judiciary is competent to determine when there has been a predatory incursion or a military invasion. They have no intelligence services. They have no military. They don't know what the president knows. So in every other context where that's the case, the amount of deference given to the executive is massive.