FINALLY: House Judiciary Committee seeks to limit runaway judicial power

[Silhouette]

Yes, one House committee is finally stepping onto the field in the one-sided battle against judicial tyranny. After years of endless legislative fiat from single district and circuit judges, the House Judiciary Committee is voting this week on a bill that clarifies once and for all that courts do not have the power to issue injunctions against abstract policies and statutes outside the parties before that particular court. Now the only question is whether the Republicans will unite behind a cogent message of keeping legislation within the legislature and place this provision in the budget bill or at least bring it to a vote before the full House and Senate.

Thank God. Finally. Our Legislature is attempting to curb the unbalanced power of the Judiciary. And we thought that was just a concept on Old Paper..

 

[RealDave]

Checks & balances. Who needs that crock of shit, Right???? Fuck that worthless piece of paper, The Constitution!!

Show us where it says local judges supersede the Congress

So, you don't know what "checks & balances" refers to?

If Congress would pass a law that said blsck people can't vote & Trump signed it, according to you the Judicial branch can do nothing.

Checks and Balances is NOT when local judges can just tell Congress, "Nah. We don't think that applies to us"

Congress CAN NOT bypass the judicial. THAT is checks and balances.

So laws passed in a small town are binding EVERYWHERE?[/

That small town would be within a court system - local, stare & federal.

 

[longknife]

Let's get this into the right light.

This does not affect local and district judges. It is meant for federal judges who decide they supersede the executive and Congress. Federal judges!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Checks and Balances is NOT when local judges can just tell Congress, "Nah. We don't think that applies to us"

Blacks would not be able to vote until the SCOTUS ruled the law was unconstitutional. That's how it should be. Trump had every right to disregard that single judge's injunction. The Exective branch is co-equal too.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Let's get this into the right light.

This does not affect local and district judges. It is meant for federal judges who decide they supersede the executive and Congress. Federal judges!

A Federal judge ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Did Obama put a stop to the implementation? No! So what is the fucking difference libs? Trump should have continued to stop travel from these seven countries until the SCOTUS ruled he has the constitutional power to stop it.

And they did rule in his favor. That's why we don't have swarms of military age males from those shithole countries raping our women like they do in Europe.

 

[busybee01]

There are already procedures for overriding federal judges. The Supreme Court can vacate the order and agree to hear the case later. A independent judiciary is important.

 

[dblack]

This is killing the DemonRAT...For decades they have relied on activist judges to force their regressive policies down our throats. Now all we need is for the feckless Republicans to stand together united!

Yes, one House committee is finally stepping onto the field in the one-sided battle against judicial tyranny. After years of endless legislative fiat from single district and circuit judges, the House Judiciary Committee is voting this week on a bill that clarifies once and for all that courts do not have the power to issue injunctions against abstract policies and statutes outside the parties before that particular court. Now the only question is whether the Republicans will unite behind a cogent message of keeping legislation within the legislature and place this provision in the budget bill or at least bring it to a vote before the full House and Senate.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, after all.

 

[dblack]

Now the only question is whether the Republicans will unite behind a cogent message of keeping legislation within the legislature and place this provision in the budget bill or at least bring it to a vote before the full House and Senate.

I suspect a fair number of Democrats will support this as well. They've long wanted to shed Constitutional oversight by the Court. They want everything decided by majority rule. It's so nice when both parties can agree.

 

[The Purge]

There are already procedures for overriding federal judges. The Supreme Court can vacate the order and agree to hear the case later. A independent judiciary is important.

This is killing the DemonRAT...For decades they have relied on activist judges to force their regressive policies down our throats. Now all we need is for the feckless Republicans to stand together united!

Yes, one House committee is finally stepping onto the field in the one-sided battle against judicial tyranny. After years of endless legislative fiat from single district and circuit judges, the House Judiciary Committee is voting this week on a bill that clarifies once and for all that courts do not have the power to issue injunctions against abstract policies and statutes outside the parties before that particular court. Now the only question is whether the Republicans will unite behind a cogent message of keeping legislation within the legislature and place this provision in the budget bill or at least bring it to a vote before the full House and Senate.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, after all.

 

[Silhouette]

Checks and Balances is NOT when local judges can just tell Congress, "Nah. We don't think that applies to us"

Blacks would not be able to vote until the SCOTUS ruled the law was unconstitutional. That's how it should be. Trump had every right to disregard that single judge's injunction. The Exective branch is co-equal too.

This has nothing to do with that. This has to do with injunctions at the lower federal court level that underling judges attempt to apply to the whole of the United States and not just the parties as the case makes its way to SCOTUS. Lower court judges are using the loophole to currently try to legislate from the bench as superiors to the vague and uncertain questions of law that have to be heard by SCOTUS. Their placing injunctions to favor one party or the other is their attempt to shoehorn an agenda into American Law before our high court has heard the matter. Even then, the high court is limited by what the Constitution CLEARLY says or implies.