Major win for the Trump Administration on federal judges

[kyzr]

A win for Trump and future presidents, which may be good or bad depending on administration.

Ping-Pong politics. If the GOP wins one set of EOs and if a Dem wins the opposite set of EOs.
Like open borders v closed borders, or a war on energy or drill baby drill, etc.

 

[alang1216]

I disagree is, the Constitution is first and foremost and federal judges do not have the Constitutional right to make national injections, the Supreme Court found nothing in the Constitution or the statutory laws that allow a federal judge to make these injunctions within the last 22 years and started on an agricultural policy and has grown since. There is no precedent for one single federal judge to make a decision over 330 million people. It isn’t in the checks and balances and never was, it is preventing democracy not preserving it.

Did the Supreme Court find anything in the Constitution or the statutory laws that prevent a federal judge from making these injunctions? If a lower court decides an EO is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court could reverse it or issue and injunction. In the meanwhile, since the ruling applies only to one region, the other regions are able to operate from an EO that was found unconstitutional. If the SC finally rules it was unconstitutional there will be chaos in those other regions as legal actions are undone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Judges should not be immune from being terminated.

Same goes for criminal presidents.

 

[meaner gene]

Judges should not be immune from being terminated.

They aren't immune.
Several judges have been impeached and convicted.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They aren't immune.
Several judges have been impeached and convicted.

Now ask any one of these guys to argue that the judge did something wrong.

Then cue the Benny Hill music as they faceplant repeatedly.

This is pre-programmed, cult sheep stuff.

 

[meaner gene]

I disagree is, the Constitution is first and foremost and federal judges do not have the Constitutional right to make national injections, the Supreme Court found nothing in the Constitution or the statutory laws that allow a federal judge to make these injunctions within the last 22 years and started on an agricultural policy and has grown since. There is no precedent for one single federal judge to make a decision over 330 million people. It isn’t in the checks and balances and never was, it is preventing democracy not preserving it.

Strange how the supreme court didn't find the bankruptcy laws being adjudicated on a national basis.

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases.

1. bankruptcy courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction,
2. they have broad—and, in most cases, nationwide—personal jurisdiction.

 

[meaner gene]

Doesn't the supreme court know this?

Yes, courts can stop the sale of dangerous products, usually by issuing injunctions or restraining orders requested by federal and state regulatory agencies. Agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Food and Drug Administration have the legal authority to take companies to court to mandate recalls or halt the distribution of unsafe merchandise.

The supreme court thinks agencies do not have this power.

 

[meaner gene]

Did the Supreme Court find anything in the Constitution or the statutory laws that prevent a federal judge from making these injunctions?

i'm wondering how the supreme court found federal judges don't have national injunction powers, except in class actions.
But ignored bankruptcy's, product recalls, and other lawsuits involving nationwide entities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

i'm wondering how the supreme court found federal judges don't have national injunction powers, except in class actions.
But ignored bankruptcy's, product recalls, and other lawsuits involving nationwide entities.

Because , probably over a year ago, they got together and found a procedural item to rule on to grant their patrons more power and riches.

Then, they managed to telegraph this strategy to their patrons, as they have done several times before, signaling the future ruling to them, if they brought the case on the prescribed grounds. And they did so with an eye on issues most important to their patrons, without regard to any other implications.

And the rest is just playing out the script, on the taxpayer's dime.

Thats what we have today: a corrupt court that basically pre rules on important issues and then gives the road map to the ruling to their patrons to pursue. The right wing judges arent going on gifted flights and yacht rides and vacations to talk about fishing or the weather.

 

[jc456]

You have someone seeking one person rule, where his word is law, and yet you accuse judges who issue rulings you don't agree with as "tyrants".

Yep, and those judges weren’t voted in by the country

It's sad that millions more think like you do, but actual tyrants have always had supporters throughout history. That's why it keeps repeating.

 

[jc456]

Did the Supreme Court find anything in the Constitution or the statutory laws that prevent a federal judge from making these injunctions? If a lower court decides an EO is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court could reverse it or issue and injunction. In the meanwhile, since the ruling applies only to one region, the other regions are able to operate from an EO that was found unconstitutional. If the SC finally rules it was unconstitutional there will be chaos in those other regions as legal actions are undone.

They ruled, in their districts

 

[alang1216]

They ruled, in their districts

So each district could have their own laws? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

 

[meaner gene]

Yep, and those judges weren’t voted in by the country

Neither is anybody handling the peace talks in the war in Iran.

 

[meaner gene]

They ruled, in their districts

Like in bankruptcy cases?

 

[meaner gene]

So each district could have their own laws? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

That's where the supreme court steps in. When districts have different governing case law, they jump in to issue an opinion that covers all districts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yep, and those judges weren’t voted in by the country

Yes, that's literally the entire point of having them.

Goddamn we are a country of morons.

 

[jc456]

So each district could have their own laws? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.

Yep

 

[jc456]

Neither is anybody handling the peace talks in the war in Iran.

Yep, they were

 

[jc456]

Like in bankruptcy cases?

It wasn’t on the Docket

 

[jc456]

Yes, that's literally the entire point of having them.

Goddamn we are a country of fking morons.

For their district yep.

It is funny how you all preach no kings and then can’t stop wanting one