Arguing that an injunction should only apply to parties before the court is standard fare in litigation. So sayeth the SC, recently. Thus the class actions challenging the Buffoon's b******t. Needing to identify the persons the injunction will apply to is a reasonable and necessary request.

Subservient to another "equal" branch of government?

Too early to tell. So far the rulings have been about remedies, e.g. injunctions. I'll wait for the merits rulings.

... not mean[sic] for circulation ...

Irrelevant under the statute linked at 8. The question under that statute is whether the coin is "currency" i.e. can you take it to a bank and exchange it for dollar bill.

Follow the links, I think it's male bovine fecal matter.

Why let him fire her - especially when there is already precedent?

The SC has not said why they have rejected the injunctions keeping personnel on the job nor do I have any insight into their thought process. However, the traditional remedy for wrongful termination is damages e.g. the money you would have earned but for the wrongful termination not an injunction giving the job back.

#1

They can. It requires a complaint and time.

Posted by Gal_Tuesday

I hardily disagree with your link. The markings exhibited are embossed. Real ammunition would be engraved in that place prior to installation of the cap (the part that makes it go boom).

#69

Just ignored the radicalized and white supremacist parts of the article.

We have assassinations because the FBI was trained to only look for right wing people ...

#8

#3

Posted by BellRinger

... crazies owning guns.

The industry has said the Buffoon is full of s**t.

Anything new?

This is what you get when you hire a lawyer instead of a doctor.

An advocate instead of a medical professional.

Buffoonism at its finest.

Dumbf**k doesn't have a clue about what government does and does't do.

Some Activities That Are Not Regulated by the FCC. We license individual stations only. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, etc.), except as owners of particular stations. (emphasis original)

Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to "fighting words" is constitutionally protected. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989).

How to say I don't understand prohibited content/view point regulations without using those words.

It takes some real dumb a**es to come up with the "what abouts" thrown out so far. Apparently, the idiots can't discern the difference between pooling resources for a common goal and mandating unconstitutional racial and ethic requirements to participate in the common goal.

#65 It's not a book, it's a 35 page law review article.

It's not just his personal opinion ...

No it's Burger's personal opinion set out in a media interview not a legal argument or document. As for the Politico article it's just a regurgitation of mainstream journalism about the Second Amendment that's refuted by what the Founders actually did with the Militia Acts and the History of the Second Amendment linked at 60.

#53 Revisionist history that I think was first posited by a journalist, I think Thomas Hartman.