Democrat judges are destroying the Democratic Party

[konradv]

Deporting hundreds of killers, rapists, home invaders, armed robbers are "bad acts" ? And calling them that, is why Democrats got their asses handed to them last November.

How do you know they all are without hearings?

 

[Marener]

That's nice.
Now post something relevant to this discussion/topic.

Inferior courts are in the constitution. It’s relevant.

 

[Marener]

Chuck Schumer said Democrats would use the courts to stop Trump. He didn't say anything about the "bounds of the law"

Then we have 89 blockages of Trump actions (IN 2 MONTHS) - more than Biden had in 4 YEARS. This is biased, partisan politics at its worst. Democrats go by the notion of BAMN (by any means necessary)

Why do you assume Biden and Trump would have similar rulings when they behave so differently?

 

[jknowgood]

Elon shouldn’t have pissed off his best customers. That’s bad business! I guess MAGA’s going to have to pick up the slack and swap F-150s for Cybertrucks. Charge, baby, charge!

So you support someone, till they don't think the same as you? You're pathetic. Lol

 

[dudmuck]

That refers to the Supreme Court, you jackass!

But do tell me when a president lacks the authority to issue an EO and name any times that was ever decided by anyone! I'm up for a good laugh! Issuing EOs is a plenary power of the presidency.

So it's actually incorrect that blocking executive action is a Supreme Court power - it's one that is constitutionally reserved to the lower courts.

Let us begin with Article III of the Constitution. The relevant parts say:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

So that's a big block of text, but let's break it down.

1. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and instructs Congress to establish "inferior" courts. So it contemplates and anticipates the existence of the lower courts. Importantly, it extends the "judicial power" to both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts.
2. Next, the Article defines the sort of cases which are subject to Federal courts' jurisdiction. One of them is where the US Government is a party. Another is where the US Constitution or laws are the subject. Both of those would be the case in challenging an executive order. So it's definitely in the Federal courts' wheelhouse.
3. The next paragraph is critical to this. It establishes that the Supreme Court has "appellate" jurisdiction. That is, it only hears a tiny class of cases as the first court to hear it, but otherwise hears appeals from lower court rulings.

So the structure of the US Courts as defined in Article III means that a case is almost always going to begin its way in the lower courts, and only can wind up at the Supreme Court on appeal. Early in the Republic, in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court held a law purporting to allow cases to be brought directly to them as unconstitutional because they only had appellate jurisdiction.

The way this ends up working in practice today is that the grunt work of actually enforcing a court order is always done at the district court level. Appeals court rulings generally instruct a lower court on what to do, but then ask the lower court to actually carry it out. So for example here's a somewhat recent court ruling on a jurisdictional question. The last sentence is boilerplate but tells you how the structure of the courts work in most cases:

The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So that sentence is sending the case back to the lower court to deal with it based on the principles of law that the Supreme Court laid out. Actually carrying it out is still left to the lower courts.

---

Now, there is something else going on here though with respect to the transgender ban, and also has happened with respect to the travel ban cases, and under the prior administration happened respecting the DAPA program.

Normally, a district court would only have jurisdiction over the specific parties to the case in front of it. A circuit court of appeals would only have jurisdiction over the geographic area it covers, and then the Supreme Court has nationwide jurisdiction. So in a suit between two private parties, the district court can only tell those specific parties what to do, the circuit can tell them and any similarly situated parties within the geographic ambit of the circuit, and the Supreme Court can tell everyone what to do.

However when one of the two parties is the US Government, things change. The district court telling the parties what to do has effectively nationwide effect, because one of the parties is the government itself, or the responsible officer(s) of the government with nationwide authority. So a nationwide injunction from a district court is unusual in that it can only happen when the government itself is sued.

Sometimes that'd be uncontroversial. After the Supreme Court had ruled on a question for example, it might get remanded to the lower court who would be tasked with enforcing that ruling through a nationwide injunction against the government. The issue coming before us today is different in that district courts are issuing injunctions before the higher courts have had a chance to look.

This is an article making a case against such nationwide injunctions.

 

[toobfreak]

So it's actually incorrect that blocking executive action is a Supreme Court power

Really? Then how do you explain the SC has been blocking executive action without question for 250 years?

- it's one that is constitutionally reserved to the lower courts.

Quit wasting my time on horseshit. On the very surface of it, it makes absolutely NO SENSE that the HIGHEST power should be reserved for lower courts! Especially when those courts are defined by the districts they serve, after being CREATED by Congress--- a plenary power only equal to by the SC and the president.

But by your own line of reasoning then, if you are right, then the J6 protesters had every right to hold up the certification of Biden on J6!

 

[konradv]

So you support someone, till they don't think the same as you? You're pathetic. Lol

There are other EV companies. What’s wrong with them? Why do you want Musk to have a monopoly?

 

[dudmuck]

Really? Then how do you explain the SC has been blocking executive action without question for 250 years?


Quit wasting my time on horseshit. On the very surface of it, it makes absolutely NO SENSE that the HIGHEST power should be reserved for lower courts! Especially when those courts are defined by the districts they serve, after being CREATED by Congress--- a plenary power only equal to by the SC and the president.

But by your own line of reasoning then, if you are right, then the J6 protesters had every right to hold up the certification of Biden on J6!

Can a federal judge override the president?​

how can a judge override an executive order from the president? Article III of the Constitution addresses this practice directly. Federal courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, and can declare an executive order illegal or unconstitutional.

the supreme court has appellate power over this.

 

[protectionist]

How do you know they all are without hearings?

Who told you they did not have hearings ?

 

[protectionist]

Inferior courts are in the constitution. It’s relevant.

NOT!

 

[protectionist]

Why do you assume Biden and Trump would have similar rulings when they behave so differently?

I don't recall ever assuming anything like that.

 

[protectionist]

So you support someone, till they don't think the same as you? You're pathetic. Lol

He's not the only one.

 

[protectionist]

So it's actually incorrect that blocking executive action is a Supreme Court power - it's one that is constitutionally reserved to the lower courts.

Let us begin with Article III of the Constitution. The relevant parts say:




So that's a big block of text, but let's break it down.

1. The Constitution establishes a Supreme Court and instructs Congress to establish "inferior" courts. So it contemplates and anticipates the existence of the lower courts. Importantly, it extends the "judicial power" to both the Supreme Court and the inferior courts.
2. Next, the Article defines the sort of cases which are subject to Federal courts' jurisdiction. One of them is where the US Government is a party. Another is where the US Constitution or laws are the subject. Both of those would be the case in challenging an executive order. So it's definitely in the Federal courts' wheelhouse.
3. The next paragraph is critical to this. It establishes that the Supreme Court has "appellate" jurisdiction. That is, it only hears a tiny class of cases as the first court to hear it, but otherwise hears appeals from lower court rulings.

So the structure of the US Courts as defined in Article III means that a case is almost always going to begin its way in the lower courts, and only can wind up at the Supreme Court on appeal. Early in the Republic, in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court held a law purporting to allow cases to be brought directly to them as unconstitutional because they only had appellate jurisdiction.

The way this ends up working in practice today is that the grunt work of actually enforcing a court order is always done at the district court level. Appeals court rulings generally instruct a lower court on what to do, but then ask the lower court to actually carry it out. So for example here's a somewhat recent court ruling on a jurisdictional question. The last sentence is boilerplate but tells you how the structure of the courts work in most cases:


So that sentence is sending the case back to the lower court to deal with it based on the principles of law that the Supreme Court laid out. Actually carrying it out is still left to the lower courts.

---

Now, there is something else going on here though with respect to the transgender ban, and also has happened with respect to the travel ban cases, and under the prior administration happened respecting the DAPA program.

Normally, a district court would only have jurisdiction over the specific parties to the case in front of it. A circuit court of appeals would only have jurisdiction over the geographic area it covers, and then the Supreme Court has nationwide jurisdiction. So in a suit between two private parties, the district court can only tell those specific parties what to do, the circuit can tell them and any similarly situated parties within the geographic ambit of the circuit, and the Supreme Court can tell everyone what to do.

However when one of the two parties is the US Government, things change. The district court telling the parties what to do has effectively nationwide effect, because one of the parties is the government itself, or the responsible officer(s) of the government with nationwide authority. So a nationwide injunction from a district court is unusual in that it can only happen when the government itself is sued.

Sometimes that'd be uncontroversial. After the Supreme Court had ruled on a question for example, it might get remanded to the lower court who would be tasked with enforcing that ruling through a nationwide injunction against the government. The issue coming before us today is different in that district courts are issuing injunctions before the higher courts have had a chance to look.

This is an article making a case against such nationwide injunctions.

Bla Bla Bla.
"The written order and the Administration's actions do not conflict. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion.”

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," ( White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt)

 

[toobfreak]

There are other EV companies. What’s wrong with them? Why do you want Musk to have a monopoly?

Hey Shitferbrains, process this:

1. I'm sorry you bought a Tesla.
2. Every Tesla owner out there who let himself be talked into buying one by the Left, now terrorized by them, is sorry they listened to you.
3. Every potential EV customer out there is now pondering not getting one and sticking with an ICE car out of fear the Left will come after their brand next.
4. Terrorizing innocent people destroying their property just because YOU don't agree with their decision is the very definition of FASCIST.

You assholes can now kiss off on the entire Climate Change movement. The windmills don't work, the panels are a clumsy pain in the ass, and now you can't even buy an EV without fear of getting swatted by the very people who told you to buy the car.

GOOD JOB ASSQUACK

 

[protectionist]

Federal courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, and can declare an executive order illegal or unconstitutional.​

the supreme court has appellate power over this.

Supreme Court will shoot down any stupid and political obstructionist orders from these knucklehead lower court judges (who need to

 

[protectionist]

Hey Shitferbrains, process this:

1. I'm sorry you bought a Tesla.
2. Every Tesla owner out there who let himself be talked into buying one by the Left, now terrorized by them, is sorry they listened to you.
3. Every potential EV customer out there is now pondering not getting one and sticking with an ICE car out of fear the Left will come after their brand next.
4. Terrorizing innocent people destroying their property just because YOU don't agree with their decision is the very definition of FASCIST.

You assholes can now kiss off on the entire Climate Change movement. The windmills don't work, the panels are a clumsy pain in the ass, and now you can't even buy an EV without fear of getting swatted by the very people who told you to buy the car.

GOOD JOB ASSQUACK

Windmills kill thousands of birds. Not very environmentally friendly.

"Gouldian Finches" by Bert Emanuel

 

[konradv]

Hey Shitferbrains, process this:

1. I'm sorry you bought a Tesla.
2. Every Tesla owner out there who let himself be talked into buying one by the Left, now terrorized by them, is sorry they listened to you.
3. Every potential EV customer out there is now pondering not getting one and sticking with an ICE car out of fear the Left will come after their brand next.
4. Terrorizing innocent people destroying their property just because YOU don't agree with their decision is the very definition of FASCIST.

You assholes can now kiss off on the entire Climate Change movement. The windmills don't work, the panels are a clumsy pain in the ass, and now you can't even buy an EV without fear of getting swatted by the very people who told you to buy the car.

GOOD JOB ASSQUACK

MAGA lies.

 

[konradv]

Who told you they did not have hearings ?

The judge that told them to stop.

 

[dudmuck]

Bla Bla Bla.
"The written order and the Administration's actions do not conflict. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion.”

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," ( White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt)

with that order (to use alien enemies act), as it is written, any person can be accused of being a member of Tren de Aragua and would have no way to challenge the accusation and would be subject to immediate arrest, detention, removal, and having all their property seized by the United States government.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Inferior courts are in the constitution. It’s relevant.

Yes but nowhere does it say these "inferior courts" have a right to stop a sitting president. It means that the constitution justifies the existence of SCOTUS, and state courts, and federal courts and city courts, and whatnot. Nothing more. Basically simply saying SCOTUS is top court, but not the only court, but NOWHERE does it say any inferior court can stop the president.