It's not easy to get a class action lawsuit, harder than just a district case.
Judge orders Trump to stop ignoring order...lol
- Thread starter justoffal
- Start date
They don't get tried in the sense of evidence, a jury verdict....they only review the constitutionality of a court trial on appeals that make it past other appeal courts below them, and that the SC chooses to hear. Thousands of appeals court rulings and cases to hear, get turned down by them...which only means the ruling by the appeals court below the SC stands.
This is serious. For if Republicans ever get endless judges voted in like Progs do, the progs would be burning down half of their areas. The fact is, Trump is having a difficult time getting judges voted as compared to Progs. And of course, Republican Senators helped the Progs with a lot of it.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
District judges are federal district judges.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Did you miss the recent SCOTUS decision regarding these district judges? Apparently, you did!
Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
My first thought on seeing this was 'whose rights does that court think have been violated?' Then I saw the answer in the story:
Lamberth said the administration needs to show what it is doing with the $260 million Congress appropriated for VOA's operations this year.
Ah. The "right" of Congress to spend money.
Wrong answer, Royce!
Congress doesn't spend money, Congress authorizes spending. There's no law that I know of that an agency cannot stay under budget and return some of the money to the Treasury (or not add to the debt). I used to hear that the Marine Corps took pride in doing that.
Getting angry over money not being spent on something that benefits foreigners (if it benefits them) is exactly the kind of thing that will cost Dems huge losses in 2026.
Lamberth said the administration needs to show what it is doing with the $260 million Congress appropriated for VOA's operations this year.
Ah. The "right" of Congress to spend money.
Wrong answer, Royce!
Congress doesn't spend money, Congress authorizes spending. There's no law that I know of that an agency cannot stay under budget and return some of the money to the Treasury (or not add to the debt). I used to hear that the Marine Corps took pride in doing that.
Getting angry over money not being spent on something that benefits foreigners (if it benefits them) is exactly the kind of thing that will cost Dems huge losses in 2026.
Hellokitty
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2009
- 11,005
- 11,546
- 2,185
What law isn't being followed in regard to the OP?
A district is solely case control on an area....one judge can not deal with all the Nation's federal cases....but the Federal LAW being challenged and tried in one district court is the same federal LAW throughout every district and the nation....federal law is the laws that rule the Nation, and NOT simply State or LOCAL law, that can change by States...
THEY are not ruling as if they are Supreme Court Justices....SC Justices only hear court cases that have already been tried, and have been appealed for a certain part of it, possibly not being constitutional....the whole case is not retried with evidence and a jury of your peers.
The injunction or stay to prevent any possible further harm coming to others while the case is being tried, is TEMPORARY.....not permanent.
Crazy example to stress the point:
Let's say Biden issued an executive order stating that from that point onward, anyone that participated in the 1/6 riot must be picked up and deported immediately, without any further due process.
The ACLU sues the govt in a district on behalf of a wife of one of them deported as being unconstitutional.
That federal judge covering that District area for the federal govt, had been able to issue an order to TEMPOARILY put a hold on that clearly unconstitutional Executive Order....and justly so....because the E/O was not just for the man in that district but 1/6 participants living throughout the united states.
This was not wrong to do....
What the Supreme court was concerned with, was the political Judge Shopping that the Democratic Party or Republican Party or the ACLU or other Anti Abortion groups.... were doing when filing a suit in a specific court because they know that particular district judge or judges, might rule in their favor based on their previous related case rulings....and put a stay Nationwide in the favor of the group filing suit.
The SC believed that if they put that a class action suit involving many states as the criteria for Nationwide injunctions etc, somehow due to the filing rule difference between class action and just a regular suit, would put an end or at least CURB the Judge Shopping that had been abused.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,420
- 31,356
- 2,905
- Thread starter
- #29
I think you just proved my point for me.
Don't get me wrong I appreciate the effort you've put into the explanation however it all circles back to the individual judge and why judge shopping happens in the first place.
One judge might agree that a law has been broken
Another judgment may not. This is why ultimately the supreme Court has final say in these disputes.
Not that they always get it right either.
Yes and no.
Very sadly the judge shopping has become an every day thing....even Repubs and conservatives always use Texas District Court cases where eventually will be a Nationwide ruling....Democrats probably use courts in New York....
(Republicans got a district court in Texas to put a temporary hold nationwide on Biden's E/O for Student Loan forgiveness).
What you want, the SC only making that decision means YEARS of the WRONG doing being allowed to continue, before it ever would reach the Supreme court...so in the Biden exampled E/O on deporting 1/6 participants, without a lower court injunction etc would continue those years in wait to make it to the Supreme Court, with the 1/6ers being deported.
We can't have that....!!!! It's clearly unconstitutional....
Much like Trump's unconstitutional E/O stripping birthright citizenship for some. That E/O , imo, put on hold until the case is settled in court was a necessary ruling.
Thus, a compromise of sorts, with more difficulty and effort and costs of time and money, a stay or injunction etc, can still take place prior to years working it's way up to the Supreme court if brought in a Class Action Suit.
-
The Sage of Main Street
Platinum Member
Marbury V Madison Was Also Mission Creep
Obviously, it wasn't in the Constitution, or judicial review would have been canceling laws since 1788.
And it was also a digression from Marbury's case against Madison. That makes it obiter dictum—a non-binding opinion.
/----/ VOA had a useful purpose when it began, but today the internet and cellphones have opened the world up to all information. Sure, NK blocks all information to the citizen slaves, but it's pretty much available to everyone. VOA has outlived its usefulness.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
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
BREAKING: Protesters in Cuba attack Communist Party office in rare riot over blackouts
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 1
