That’s exactly the problem with the CASA ruling. It’s not localized by state,or even locality. If it were the battles could be fought state by state. Instead every individual person must fight their battle alone unless they can convince a court to certify their class for a class action. Even then the conservative justices affirmed in concurrences that they foresaw that work around and signaled that they were willing to scrutinize class certifications.

Trump v CASA ruled universal injunctions beyond the power of the courts. That means that the ruling can only offer relief to the parties in the individual case. As credit reporting agencies are nationwide entities this case would, by nature, apply to those agencies across the whole nation. I will imagine that this ruling applies only to those agencies party to this lawsuit. Even if that’s not all of the big three, this suit will still signal to the executive that action against other agencies won’t hold up in court and the CFPB will likely just give up on the rule.

This is my understanding. I’m not a lawyer. This is not legal advice ™.

They spelled “out of racism” wrong. “In error” isn’t even close.

‘Twas ever thus.

If Reagan were around to see this we might stand a chance at getting some kind of gun control.

Absolutely! But it’s not just about the internal pressure. If everyone trump threatens retaliates even when he backs off, and then demands he offer assurances before they do, he looks weak. The one thing he doesn’t want, and can’t afford, is to look weak in front of his base. It won’t work immediately, but if he keeps looking weak on the public stage he’ll either stop making such threats in order to avoid it or lose enough support to matter.

He means, just like him, she’s a horrible tapeworm in the bowels of our society.

“It’s been very cathartic making my mental health troubles everyone else’s problem” says man who can afford to pay an entire team to listen to his unhinged rants if he wants.

I would imagine that Columbia’s disciplinary process creates records that are maintained for a number of years. If they weren’t created, or have since been destroyed that would be evidence towards improper procedures. Certainly any destruction now would be highly illegal and might result in a presumption against the university. As to the tenant laws I assume the order that the students received should be proof enough unless New York tenant laws have a carve out for universities.

Bare in mind that the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It only has power when the government and the will of the people give it power.

There’s a scene from The West Wing that really impressed upon me the great challenge of holding even the seemingly most stable democracies together. Toby Ziegler was working with representatives of a newly forming government and a constitutional scholar played by Christopher Lloyd to craft a constitution. Toby takes issue with the amount of power they are considering vesting in their executive branch, preferring instead a parliamentary system. Christopher Lloyd’s character responds to him with almost this exact point, telling him that their work just then was to instill a democratic spirit in those leaders and through them the broader populace of their country.