Andr3w
Region: US
Saturday 28 June 2025 19:00:34 GMT
459604
72433
1484
3864
Music
Download
Comments
Doctor Bear :
lawyers watching billable hours just explode: 💰 👄 💰
2025-06-28 19:51:24
5821
user4252469152541 :
I can’t wrap my head around how bad this is for all of us.
2025-06-29 15:41:12
6
💙ElementalAdventurer💙🌊🌴🥥 :
You know exactly what you are doing with the growl sir
2025-07-02 18:19:59
0
eethanillium :
Okay, who gave deadpool a law degree…
2025-06-29 00:57:29
838
UrbaneCowboy :
Here's my take as an attorney. Everyone who can afford it should file pro se. Every single person. so not one national injunction but thousands upon thousands of individual injunctions. The court system is already overburdened. it wouldn't be able to handle the influx of new injunction cases. show the Supreme Court what they have wrought. I'm sure there are some attorneys who would love to draft templates that anyone can use.
2025-06-28 19:35:36
312
shannonpedersen8 :
That growl, sir, you are killing us women out here.
2025-06-28 19:28:06
650
Melissa :
I’m confused. So if I sue the federal government in my state and get a favorable result, someone else could sue the government for the exact same thing in their state and get a different result? Shouldn’t federal laws be applied the same way regardless of where you are in the country? What’s the point then?
2025-06-28 22:36:06
0
Erik Garcia :
You and Sotomayor should get a full refund for your law degree. As a lawyer you are supposed to develop your capacity to think logically, but the system has failed you. If an EO is clearly unconstitutional like the one you are proposing it will be struck down not one court but by all courts. Effectively creating a national injunctions. You are assuming that by removing the power that a single judge had to issue national injunctions the collective of all judges cannot produce the same result🤦♂️
2025-06-29 07:18:02
1
Michelle (Taylor's Version) :
So are class action lawsuits a way around this and still legal?
2025-07-03 19:03:46
0
Brandon :
So, the only rights that are protected now are of the people who can afford to sue the government? Got it. Rights have to be purchased at this point. Fantastic.
2025-06-28 19:52:35
2592
Mr H :
More fear mongering because the second amendment has been challenged for years by the democrats and they have lost every time. Secondly, any president who would submit an EO that was in BLATANT violation of the constitution would be immediately impeached. But I hear you. You’re telling all Republicans to join a national alliance like the NRA so that they can file suit on behalf of all members. Got it! 😁
2025-06-29 15:44:04
1
boycottleftards :
Oh, so you mean a unelected judge can’t be president? Great so you mean the person that almost 80,000,000 people elected can actually do his job.
2025-06-29 13:18:40
0
Dr. Rubin, MD :
We’re friends..right?? Right??? 😅
2025-06-30 14:22:00
11
Maggie Reed :
I’m already going to retain you as my lawyer when i eventually need one because I’ve been deported for my tik toks. 😂
2025-06-28 20:24:56
237
bdubs843 :
its clear they'll just reverse when (if) they have to, yes?
2025-06-29 23:09:33
0
HistoryVoyagerPod :
what about equal protection under the law
2025-06-29 04:44:55
2
Dare to dream :
What about state’s suing on behalf of their citizens? Let’s say NY challenged the EO about taking the guns? Is that possible? Woujd the whole state then have an injunction?
2025-06-29 15:11:18
1
Garth :
I hear all of this and I agree ending the universal injunctions of federal courts is bad, but my assumption is that if/when such a case made it to the Supreme Court they could still nullify such an act across the entire country with a single decision, no?
2025-06-29 21:38:49
1
……. :
They set precedence and don’t even realize they opened Pandora’s box
2025-06-28 19:53:40
818
DodecaRachel💙 :
Heard, chef. But ALSO, why do you sound exactly like Ryan Reynolds
2025-06-28 23:00:10
14
Chad Geidel :
Its too bad the Democrats will never use the power that 🎃 has gifted them.
2025-06-30 16:14:13
1
MilkmanMinnesota :
Well, that’s misleading AF. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the individual right to keep and bare arms, twice. In the latest ruling, the Supreme Court gave a pathway for a nationwide injunction. Why are you ignoring that?
2025-06-29 12:46:42
0
Brittany Pullen492 :
I thought the Supreme Court would see it for what it was, executive over reach. I thought they would protect the FUNCTION of the judiciary; to protect the people. The Supreme Court is now openly functioning like a corporation. It seems to operate in line with its share holders. I knew this existed, I am sad we are so visibly close to it now.
2025-06-30 00:00:07
0
theholisticesthie :
We will be using ChatGPT to help us file suits. We are done with attorneys who don’t even care about us anyway.
2025-06-29 00:13:16
1
Last responder :
I mean it is a win. It stops both sides from judge shopping that derails the policy of the administration the people voted for. Republicans will regret it at some point but there will be groups to bring law suits in all 94 districts if it’s important enough.
2025-07-03 15:54:12
0
To see more videos from user @andr3wsky, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
