Hawaiian judge blocks Trump's new immigration ban EO: Did the judge say what law(s) it violated?

[beagle9]

You do know that he's talking about after being convicted in a court of law don't you ?

Is he being tried for anything? Is he in a court of law, other than his own? You're advocating the killing of a federal judge. That's not what this country stands for.

. You are full of it... He was speaking on the trial of this judge for treason, and then the appropriate punishment for treason. Now granted the punishment hasn't been used in years, but some people feel that it should be used again as a sentence for treason. Now you trying to make something out of what he said in that context, is no different than the motis-operandi of the left in everything it does. Making Trump out to be a racist is the same tactic the left has used, otherwise by taking his words and twisting them to mean something else.

 

[bripat9643]

~~~~~~~~~

Not the answer you were fishing for then?

It is a joke of an answer.

That's why I laugh.

Did the judge base his rejection of the ban on its constitutionality?

No.

"Judge Theodore Chuang issued the order early Thursday, saying the ACLU and other groups were likely to prevail on their arguments that the ban was unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of religion."

"...Hawaii was likely to succeed on a claim that the ban violates First Amendment protections against religious discrimination."

"The groups argued that the underlying rationale of the ban was to discriminate against Muslims, making it unconstitutional. Chuang granted a preliminary injunction nationwide basis."

News from The Associated Press

AP - fake news

 

[Zorro!]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

 

[JimBowie1958]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

Until the era of FDR, judges held it as sacred duty to uphold the law. A slew of socialist reformers changed that, taking the position that courts and judges ARE THE LAW.

Conservatives follow the idea of three coequal branches of government all constrained by the law. This is not at all how leftist and Obama judges see it. The left sees our government structured like this;

The courts are superior to the law and the law must bow to the will of the court.

 

[danielpalos]

You two nitwits haven't been paying attention:

JUDGE SAYS HAWAII CAN CHALLENGE TRUMP'S NEW TRAVEL BAN
BY REUTERS ON 3/8/17

""A federal judge on Wednesday said the state of Hawaii could file an amended complaint against President Donald Trump's new executive order temporarily banning the entry of refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii said the state could add to its initial lawsuit, which had challenged Trump's original ban signed in January. The state is claiming the revised ban signed by the president on Monday violates the U.S. Constitution. It is the first legal challenge to the revised order.

The state of Hawaii will ask the court on Wednesday to put an emergency halt to Trump's new order, according to a court schedule signed by the judge. A hearing is set for March 15, a day before the new ban is to go into effect."""

Judge says Hawaii can challenge Trump's new travel ban

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution.

Upgrading Ellis Island is more humane and efficient; we should not encourage sloth by the general government.

 

[Zorro!]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

Until the era of FDR, judges held it as sacred duty to uphold the law. A slew of socialist reformers changed that, taking the position that courts and judges ARE THE LAW.

Conservatives follow the idea of three coequal branches of government all constrained by the law. This is not at all how leftist and Obama judges see it. The left sees our government structured like this;

View attachment 262376

The courts are superior to the law and the law must bow to the will of the court.

As the number of Trump appointed judges continues to flip Courts, I suspect "Progressives" will promptly adopt "fresh" views of the importance of Judicial Restraint.

"Progressive Values" are completely utilitarian, they have no commitment to anything other than the acquisition of and furtherance of their power.

 

[Zorro!]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[edward37]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Seems like moron in the WH is having a bad time with judges recently

 

[Uncensored2008]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Seems like moron in the WH is having a bad time with judges recently

Seems like Obama Judges have no respect for the law.

 

[danielpalos]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

that is simply the way our form of federalism works. those judges are federal judges and deal with federal law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

that is simply the way our form of federalism works. those judges are federal judges and deal with federal law.

In most cases, including this one, they ignore federal law.

Obama judges particularly think that their word is law.

 

[Zorro!]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

that is simply the way our form of federalism works. those judges are federal judges and deal with federal law.

That's not the way it worked for the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.

 

[Zorro!]

AG Barr: Nationwide Injunctions Violate Separation Of Powers And Make District Court Judges Far Too Powerful

Barr pointed out, nationwide injunctions have been used an unprecedented number of times during Trump’s administration. In fact, more national injunctions have been issued under Trump than during the entire 20th century.

Since President Trump took office, federal district courts have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch. That’s more than one a month. By comparison, during President Obama’s first two years, district courts issued two nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch, both of which were vacated by the Ninth Circus. And according to the Department’s best estimates, courts issued only 27 nationwide injunctions in all of the 20th century.

Some say this proves that the Trump Administration is lawless. Not surprisingly, I disagree. The only case litigated on the merits in the Supreme Court—the so-called “travel ban” challenge—ended with President’s policy being upheld.​

The use of such nationwide injunctions violated the separation of powers courts have traditionally observed:

Article III vests federal courts with “the judicial power” to decide “Cases” or “Controversies.” As the Supreme Court has instructed, that means concrete disputes among individual parties. In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, “the province of the Court is solely to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the Executive or Executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.”

Limiting judicial power to resolving concrete disputes between parties, rather than conducting general oversight of the Political Branches, ensures that courts do not usurp policy-making functions…

Consistent with that understanding, federal courts did not issue any nationwide injunctions during the first 175 years of the Republic. The first documented nationwide injunction issued in 1963 from the D.C. Circuit. The absence of nationwide injunctions does not reflect an unwillingness to issue injunctions against the government. Quite the contrary. In 1937 the lower courts had issued thousands of injunctions against New Deal programs. But, in keeping with the unbroken English tradition and two centuries of American law, those injunctions bound the government only with respect to the parties to those cases. The government continued to enforce New Deal programs against others. For example, courts issued more than 1,600 injunctions against a particular agricultural tax, but the government still collected it from more than 71,000 non-challengers…

But today, courts pass judgment on laws or executive actions bounded only by judicial doctrines of “deference.” Assuming the role of gatekeeper, a judge acts as a one-man Council of Revision. That not only embraces a judicial role that the Framers rejected, but also diminishes the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Executive.​

Secondly, nationwide injunctions effectively made district court judges more powerful than even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was never the intent:

The Constitution empowers Congress to create lower federal courts, and in designing a system of 93 judicial districts and 12 regional circuits, Congress set clear geographic limits on lower-court jurisdiction. In our system, district-court rulings do not bind other judges, even other judges in the same district. This system has many virtues. It creates checks and balances within the judiciary itself and encourages what former D.C. Circuit Judge Harold Leventhal called “percolation”—the process by which many lower courts offer their views on a legal issue before higher courts resolve it…

Nationwide injunctions not only allow district courts to wield unprecedented power, they also allow district courts to wield it asymmetrically. When a court denies a nationwide injunction, the decision does not affect other cases. But when a court grants a nationwide injunction, it renders all other litigation on the issue largely irrelevant. Think about what that means for the Government. When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table—we must win every case. The challengers, however, must find only one district judge—out of an available 600—willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.

No official in the United States government can exercise that kind of nationwide power, with the sole exception of the President. And the Constitution subjects him to nationwide election, among other constitutional checks, as a prerequisite to wielding that power. Even the Chief Justice of the United States must convince at least four of his colleagues to bind the Federal Government nationwide.​

Even The NYT's notes that legal experts largely agree with Barr’s take on nationwide injunctions:

The injunctions let judges who might have strong views impose them broadly, bypassing established tools like class-action lawsuits, said Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who published an article last month advocating that federal judges no longer use nationwide injunctions.

“How can a single judge decide a question for the whole country?” Mr. Bray said…

There is speculation that the Supreme Court will address universal injunctions in the coming year. “The justices don’t like the districts courts changing national policy overnight,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston.​

I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more outrage about this if 37 national injunctions had been filed against a Democrat president. In fact, I suspect this would suddenly become a crisis the next time a Democrat is elected to the White House.

AG Barr: Nationwide injunctions violate separation of powers and make district court judges far too powerful

There are three reasons I see that allows this crap to continue:
1) liberals go judge shopping for the Obama appointed judge that drools the most while on the bench,
2) the judicial Establishment is highly repulsed by the crudity and lack of statesmanship of DJT, and
3) The Federalis have always leaned liberal, due to the infiltration of our higher education system by Marxist ideologues who will tell any lie and make the most absurd rulings to support their ideological struggle.

But Conservative Congresscritters have always had the power to stop these things in all three areas, but the Republican DC political Establishment has always been able to keep their leash pretty tight till DJT won.

Now things are changing and the Swamp Dragon is very upset with that.

I agree.

Trump has moved the 9th Circus from 16-6 "Progressive" vs Constitutionalist to 16-10 with 3 more vacancies to fill.

Trump will flip the 2nd Circuit once he fills the remaining vacancies (Connecticut, New York and Vermont).

He already flipped the 3rd Circuit.

The Senate confirmed its 100th Trump judicial nominee on May 2.

Barr is dealing with your first point. A single district judge shouldn't be more powerful than the Chief Justice. They presumed this power and to date they have been getting away with it.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Seems like moron in the WH is having a bad time with judges recently

Seems like Obama Judges have no respect for the law.

Do "Progressives" as a group seem to respect anything that hinders their pursuit of control over others?