Judge orders Trump to stop ignoring order...lol

[justoffal]

This is too funny....co-equal not co-judicial.
The rogue judges are now realizing they have no means of enforcement.

Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed

A federal judge on Wednesday essentially accused the Trump administration of ignoring his orders to restore Voice of America's operations and explain clearly what it is doing with the government-run o...

www.yahoo.com

 

[shockedcanadian]

It is always "district judge". Doesn't this suggest a limitation to their district? These aren't federal judges or of course members of the S.C who have a mandate over the federal government.

 

[Care4all]

It is always "district judge". Doesn't this suggest a limitation to their district? These aren't federal judges or of course members of the S.C who have a mandate over the federal government.

District judges are Federal Judges....?

 

[shockedcanadian]

District judges are Federal Judges....?

Im.asking you. Are they limited only to their district or all of America? If it is only limited to a district than at most, the administration would only be compelled to return 1/50th of their budget presuming Voice of America operates in 50 states.

 

[wamose]

This is too funny....co-equal not co-judicial.
The rogue judges are now realizing they have no means of enforcement.

Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed

A federal judge on Wednesday essentially accused the Trump administration of ignoring his orders to restore Voice of America's operations and explain clearly what it is doing with the government-run o...

www.yahoo.com

Obstructionist peon judges WILL cause a constitutional crisis if they don't stop their power grab. Put them on traffic ticket adjudication or let them determine the proper punishment for illegal dog pooping but keep them away from Presidential meddling. Hell, these judges are as bad as Biden's autopen.

 

[Care4all]

Im.asking you. Are they limited only to their district or all of America? If it is only limited to a district than at most, the administration would only be compelled to return 1/50th of their budget presuming Voice of America operates in 50 states.

If you live in new york, or in Texas or in Montana or in Utah etc and a nationwide federal law is broken or abused or is unconstitutional by a federal entity in your same area, that is harming you and other citizens....

In order to get reprieve or to stop the federal entity from from abusing and breaking the federal law or constitution,

should they have to travel to Washington DC, and have the Supreme Court be the trial judges, that should conduct their trial cases?

1. The SC is not a trial court so that can not happen....they only take cases that have been appealed....and even then, they pick and choose the ones they want to hear the appeal on


I guess what I am trying to say is that District Federal Judges are put in place to make it easier for the person bringing suit against the federal govt entity, breaking federal law or the Constitution....so that they don't have to travel to a Federal Court in DC....

The District Judge is the Federal judge, as if they were in DC at the Federal Govt capital....only you don't have to travel to DC to bring your court case....

If the case brought before the judge was very likely unconstitutional, the district judges have put TEMPORARY HOLDS on the entity being sued until the trial is settled and appeals have run their course and a final decision is made. If it is likely unconstitutional in their federal district then it is likely unconstitutional across the nation, so they have ordered the injunction, the hold, for the federal govt to not do this harm to all citizens across the nation.

The recent SC decision ruled that one district judge can not make the injunction for the whole country, unless it is a CLASS ACTION suit... there are other states that have suits for the same potentially federal illegal action....

 

[justoffal]

District judges are Federal Judges....?

But they do have districts something that they seem to have forgotten about. There's only one supreme Court something that the supreme Court seems to have forgotten about.

 

[justoffal]

Im.asking you. Are they limited only to their district or all of America? If it is only limited to a district than at most, the administration would only be compelled to return 1/50th of their budget presuming Voice of America operates in 50 states.

Right now they have followed mission creep over the decades into making national decisions which is something they should not be doing. The supreme Court probably allows it because it takes some of their workload away. It's going to be up to Congress to smack these guys back down into their districts.

 

[kyzr]

Right now they have followed mission creep over the decades into making national decisions which is something they should not be doing. The supreme Court probably allows it because it takes some of their workload away. It's going to be up to Congress to smack these guys back down into their districts.

The USSC already smacked-down district judges to only ruling on cases in their districts, unless there is a "class action" lawsuit for multiple districts.

 

[Care4all]

But they do have districts something that they seem to have forgotten about. There's only one supreme Court something that the supreme Court seems to have forgotten about.

They have a district because they can not cover the ground of the whole united states...it is a physical impossibility....

If it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to arrest you in Utah and let's say...without probable cause or without Miranda rights or you are never given due process or call to your lawyer....

It would also be unconstitutional for the federal govt to do the same thing in New York, or Texas or Montana or Maine etc to a citizen there....would it not?

 

[justoffal]

They have a district because they can not cover the ground of the whole united states...it is a physical impossibility....

If it is unconstitutional for the federal govt to arrest you in Utah and let's say...without probable cause or without Miranda rights or you are never given due process or call to your lawyer....

It would also be unconstitutional for the federal govt to do the same thing in New York, or Texas or Montana or Maine etc to a citizen there....would it not?

The point is there is a reason for district lines whatever it may be. It's a reasonable concept to assume that one court system can't cover the entire United States by itself. Of course SCOTUS was formed originally with that intention.

Either you have districts or you don't you can't have it both ways. It's the same concept with a state boundary. All the states belong to the United States and yet once you cross the state boundary you are subject to an entirely new set of local laws.

Allowing district judges to behave as if they were actually supreme Court judges creates a demand for judge shopping. Very unhealthy.

 

[Moonglow]

This is too funny....co-equal not co-judicial.
The rogue judges are now realizing they have no means of enforcement.

Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed

A federal judge on Wednesday essentially accused the Trump administration of ignoring his orders to restore Voice of America's operations and explain clearly what it is doing with the government-run o...

www.yahoo.com

Trump has realized he doesn't need to follow the law.

 

[Moonglow]

The point is there is a reason for district lines whatever it may be. It's a reasonable concept to assume that one court system can't cover the entire United States by itself. Of course SCOTUS was formed originally with that intention.

Either you have districts or you don't you can't have it both ways. It's the same concept with a state boundary. All the states belong to the United States and yet once you cross the state boundary you are subject to an entirely new set of local laws.

Allowing district judges to behave as if they were actually supreme Court judges creates a demand for judge shopping. Very unhealthy.

But it is ok when it is done to a Democratic president?

 

[justoffal]

The USSC already smacked-down district judges to only ruling on cases in their districts, unless there is a "class action" lawsuit for multiple districts.

Yes so suddenly there's a proliferation of class action lawsuits? I mean it's pretty obvious that they're using that exception circumvent the district lines.

 

[justoffal]

Trump has realized he doesn't need to follow the law.

Trump has realized the same thing that numerous other presidents in the past have realized.
When you get a collection of assholes on the bench you can invite them to enforce their own stupid rulings.

 

[Care4all]

The point is there is a reason for district lines whatever it may be. It's a reasonable concept to assume that one court system can't cover the entire United States by itself. Of course SCOTUS was formed originally with that intention.

Either you have districts or you don't you can't have it both ways. It's the same concept with a state boundary. All the states belong to the United States and yet once you cross the state boundary you are subject to an entirely new set of local laws.

Allowing district judges to behave as if they were actually supreme Court judges creates a demand for judge shopping. Very unhealthy.

SCOTUS was NEVER created as a trial court for the federal govt. Other FEDERAL courts Nationwide were created for trials.

And if something the federal govt is doing is likely unconstitutional and needs a hold in a district until settled in court... Then it is likely unconstitutional in all other districts across the Nation too....? We don't have federal law only for a specific district, we have federal laws in every district, and all are the same federal laws in each federal district.


I can accept the SC ruling that the district federal judge needs a class action suit to do it nationally.

 

[justoffal]

SCOTUS was NEVER created as a trial court for the federal govt. Other FEDERAL courts Nationwide were created for trials.

And if something the federal govt is doing is likely unconstitutional and needs a hold in a district until settled in court... Then it is likely unconstitutional in all other districts across the Nation too....? We don't have federal law only for a specific district, we have federal laws in every district, and all are the same federal laws in each federal district.


I can accept the SC ruling that the district federal judge needs a class action suit to do it nationally.

And yet many cases get tried in front of SCOTUS.
Once again what you're trying to describe is having your cake and eating it too. It simply isn't tenable.
Just because all federal judges have the same Federal construct that they are supposed to interpret doesn't mean they will interpret it the same way. Either eliminate the district lines or eliminate the overreach. One of those will definitely happen.

 

[Dr.Destructo]

This is too funny....co-equal not co-judicial.
The rogue judges are now realizing they have no means of enforcement.

Judge orders Trump administration to explain why order to restore Voice of America wasn't followed

A federal judge on Wednesday essentially accused the Trump administration of ignoring his orders to restore Voice of America's operations and explain clearly what it is doing with the government-run o...

www.yahoo.com

Judges don't have any say over what the president does, unless it goes against the basic principals of the Constitution.

 

[justoffal]

Judges don't have any say over what the president does, unless it goes against the basic principals of the Constitution.

The problem has become not so much the Constitution but the constant misinterpretation from rogue judges. You can make the Constitution say anything you wanted to if you water it down enough.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But they do have districts something that they seem to have forgotten about. There's only one supreme Court something that the supreme Court seems to have forgotten about.

Not in all cases. Some laws, if found unconstitutional in one jurisdiction