> I'm afraid without elaborating at least a little bit on the context, this does not tell me anything about the correctness of my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) statement.
Nationwide injunctions are technically still allowed. The birthright citizenship case mostly means that judges _shouldn't_ do them though.
> Is the case you linked the case from this article?
Its for the "click-to-cancel" case. I don't think it's too much to ask to open the link and see that the actual text of the lawsuit starts immediately talking about click-to-cancel.
> This comment mostly reads as "look at me, I know how to quote legalese in a way that only other people who are also on the inside can understand. I am very intelligent."
The comment was more of "our court systems are become partisan hacks". Rules against the party's desires cannot be injected nationwide but rules assisting the party's desires can be.
There's certainly more people in this country with birthright citizenship than companies affected by click-to-cancel.
Nationwide injunctions are technically still allowed. The birthright citizenship case mostly means that judges _shouldn't_ do them though.
> Is the case you linked the case from this article?
Its for the "click-to-cancel" case. I don't think it's too much to ask to open the link and see that the actual text of the lawsuit starts immediately talking about click-to-cancel.
> This comment mostly reads as "look at me, I know how to quote legalese in a way that only other people who are also on the inside can understand. I am very intelligent."
The comment was more of "our court systems are become partisan hacks". Rules against the party's desires cannot be injected nationwide but rules assisting the party's desires can be.
There's certainly more people in this country with birthright citizenship than companies affected by click-to-cancel.