Major win for the Trump Administration on federal judges

[Hafar1014]

Every win in the SC makes Trump stronger and democrats weaker

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every win in the SC makes Trump stronger and democrats weaker

As designed and prescribed. Yes, the country is aware.

 

[buckeye]

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".

If you want to make executive orders illegal, you have to pass a law. Until then, Trump is allowed to make as many EO's as he likes, just like the Potatohead did before him.

Judges who apply laws to the entire country when legally they can only apply to their own jurisdiction sound like tyrants.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you want to make executive orders illegal, you have to pass a law. Until then, Trump is allowed to make as many EO's as he likes, just like the Potatohead did before him.

Judges who make laws for the entire country when legally they are only allow them to apply to their jurisdiction sound like tyrants.

And part of the job of judges is to toss out unconstitutional and unlawful EOs.

 

[meaner gene]

For their district yep.

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

Do you think a bankruptcy judge only rules within his district?

 

[meaner gene]

If you want to make executive orders illegal, you have to pass a law. Until then, Trump is allowed to make as many EO's as he likes, just like the Potatohead did before him.

Judges who apply laws to the entire country when legally they can only apply to their own jurisdiction sound like tyrants.

Do you know how a bankruptcy court works?

 

[jc456]

If you want to make executive orders illegal, you have to pass a law. Until then, Trump is allowed to make as many EO's as he likes, just like the Potatohead did before him.

Judges who apply laws to the entire country when legally they can only apply to their own jurisdiction sound like tyrants.

Kings, you know those rulers democrats march against except when it conveniences them

 

[task0778]

If you want to make executive orders illegal, you have to pass a law. Until then, Trump is allowed to make as many EO's as he likes, just like the Potatohead did before him.

No, the Courts can make executive orders illegal (unconstitutional). The district judge rules and then the case gets appealed up the line until it gets to the SC. Trump has issued many EOs, some got whacked and some didn't.

 

[WEATHER53]

And part of the job of judges is to toss out unconstitutional and unlawful EOs.

They don’t have national purview

 

[meaner gene]

They don’t have national purview

They do in bankruptcy cases.

 

[WEATHER53]

They do in bankruptcy cases.

Except the thread is not bankruptcy cases

 

[meaner gene]

Except the thread is not bankruptcy cases

Bankruptcy judges are federal district court judges

 

[WEATHER53]

Notice how the votes is 7-2 in favor of the thinkers despite the overwhelming majority presence of lib loons
What is that?
Well, it’s because the multiple screen names can vote Only Once and not for each name. That could change now that I have revealed that fact .

So right it needs said twice
Vote now10-2. Fraudulent multiple screen names is deliberate deception

 

[jc456]

They do in bankruptcy cases.

Different subject. It isn’t by an executive voted in by the nation!! Apples submarines

BTW, you really do believe in kings

 

[WEATHER53]

Different subject. It isn’t by an executive voted in by the nation!! Apples submarines

Deflection and TDS is All they Got

 

[alang1216]

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.

I'm not sure I'd use the term "jump", in the real world it is more like ponder and procrastinate.
Active and Recently Addressed Circuit Splits

• Title IX Employment Discrimination: The federal circuits are deeply split on whether employees can bring a private lawsuit for employment discrimination under Title IX, or if they must use Title VII. The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits rule that Title VII's comprehensive framework blocks parallel Title IX lawsuits. Conversely, eight other circuits (including the First, Second, and Third) recognize a private right of action, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the issue. [1]
• Google Drive and Digital Privacy: A sharp division exists regarding privacy expectations for cloud storage accounts scanned by automated algorithms. The Fourth Circuit ruled that an individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Google Drive files even after a company algorithm flags potential child sexual abuse material, meaning a warrantless police search of new files violates the Fourth Amendment. Other federal courts have given law enforcement wider latitude when private tech platforms flag illicit content. [1]
• Prolonged Seizure of Property: In a case involving the towing and extended retention of a vehicle, courts fractured over the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. The Third, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits hold that the Fourth Amendment requires government retention of legally seized property to remain continuously reasonable. They directly split with the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, which hold that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the protracted detention of property once it has been legally seized. [1]
• Labor Disputes vs. Constitutional Challenges: Courts are divided over whether federal judges have jurisdiction to halt National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proceedings. The Third and Ninth Circuits ruled that the Norris-LaGuardia Act strips federal courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions, viewing structural challenges to the NLRB as part of an underlying labor dispute. They split from the Fifth Circuit, which held that constitutional separation-of-powers challenges fall outside the law's restriction. [1]
• Immigration Mandatory Detention: A widening split involves how to treat non-citizens who entered the country unlawfully years prior but are later taken into custody. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits authorize mandatory detention without bond by defining "applicant for admission" broadly. However, the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have rejected this, ruling that mandatory detention applies strictly to those actively seeking entry at the border. [1]

Comparing the Jurisdictions

Legal Issue [1, 2, 3, 4]	Strict / Restrictive Circuit Approach	Broad / Expanded Circuit Approach	Status
Title IX Claims	5th, 7th, 11th (No private employee lawsuits)	1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th (Lawsuits allowed)	Under SCOTUS review
Extended Property Seizure	1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 11th (4th Amendment doesn't cover retention)	3rd, 9th, D.C. (4th Amendment applies to prolonged retention)	Active Split
NLRB Injunctions	3rd, 9th (Federal courts barred from issuing injunctions)	5th (Federal courts can halt structural agency issues)	Active Split
Immigration Custody	5th, 8th (Mandatory detention without bond)	2nd, 6th, 11th (Bond hearings allowed for past entries)	Active Split

 

[jc456]

I'm not sure I'd use the term "jump", in the real world it is more like ponder and procrastinate.
Active and Recently Addressed Circuit Splits

• Title IX Employment Discrimination: The federal circuits are deeply split on whether employees can bring a private lawsuit for employment discrimination under Title IX, or if they must use Title VII. The Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits rule that Title VII's comprehensive framework blocks parallel Title IX lawsuits. Conversely, eight other circuits (including the First, Second, and Third) recognize a private right of action, prompting the Supreme Court to take up the issue. [1]
• Google Drive and Digital Privacy: A sharp division exists regarding privacy expectations for cloud storage accounts scanned by automated algorithms. The Fourth Circuit ruled that an individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in their Google Drive files even after a company algorithm flags potential child sexual abuse material, meaning a warrantless police search of new files violates the Fourth Amendment. Other federal courts have given law enforcement wider latitude when private tech platforms flag illicit content. [1]
• Prolonged Seizure of Property: In a case involving the towing and extended retention of a vehicle, courts fractured over the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. The Third, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits hold that the Fourth Amendment requires government retention of legally seized property to remain continuously reasonable. They directly split with the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, which hold that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the protracted detention of property once it has been legally seized. [1]
• Labor Disputes vs. Constitutional Challenges: Courts are divided over whether federal judges have jurisdiction to halt National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proceedings. The Third and Ninth Circuits ruled that the Norris-LaGuardia Act strips federal courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions, viewing structural challenges to the NLRB as part of an underlying labor dispute. They split from the Fifth Circuit, which held that constitutional separation-of-powers challenges fall outside the law's restriction. [1]
• Immigration Mandatory Detention: A widening split involves how to treat non-citizens who entered the country unlawfully years prior but are later taken into custody. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits authorize mandatory detention without bond by defining "applicant for admission" broadly. However, the Second, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have rejected this, ruling that mandatory detention applies strictly to those actively seeking entry at the border. [1]

Comparing the Jurisdictions

Legal Issue [1, 2, 3, 4]	Strict / Restrictive Circuit Approach	Broad / Expanded Circuit Approach	Status
Title IX Claims	5th, 7th, 11th (No private employee lawsuits)	1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th (Lawsuits allowed)	Under SCOTUS review
Extended Property Seizure	1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th, 11th (4th Amendment doesn't cover retention)	3rd, 9th, D.C. (4th Amendment applies to prolonged retention)	Active Split
NLRB Injunctions	3rd, 9th (Federal courts barred from issuing injunctions)	5th (Federal courts can halt structural agency issues)	Active Split
Immigration Custody	5th, 8th (Mandatory detention without bond)	2nd, 6th, 11th (Bond hearings allowed for past entries)	Active Split

Thought you were against kings?

 

[alang1216]

Every win in the SC makes Trump stronger and democrats weaker

The former is certainly true, the later may be wishful thinking.

 

[alang1216]

Thought you were against kings?

I am. I'm for checks and balances. It is either that or violence and I choose the former. Why do you think Mamdani got elected, he was a seen as a counterweight to GOP overreach.