coincidence, these critics assert, that nationwide injunctions against the Bush administration came largely from California, those against the Obama administration came from Texas, and those against the Trump administration largely from courts in California, Hawaii, and Washington.

From a constitutional perspective, opponents of nationwide injunctions argue the Judiciary Act of 1789 could not have granted the power to impose a nationwide injunction because the Constitution only granted our judiciary powers available to English courts of the era. Those courts did not have the power to grant injunctions against the king and only in limited circumstances issued injunctions applying to more than just the specific plaintiff in question.

Other commentators argue that sometimes people in similar situations to the plaintiffs face irreparable harm without a nationwide injunction. They also point toher record of helping her political pals. She is obviously on the hot seat for her long record as a politician.

Barbara Hoppe has a lot of explaining to do. She has to explain why she took sides against the college students she is supposed to represent. She has to explain why she aggressively helped her political donors squeeze a $100,000 payoff for their group.

She has to explain why she made an unannounced, unnecessary City Council motion after a five and one-half hour Council meeting to punish the college students, when the usual administrative process was working. It happened, and I'm disappointed in Barbara Hoppe.

She talks the talk about openness and transparency. But when it means helping her political donors, she doesn’t walk the walk. If I’m elected Ward