Senator Josh Hawley states the obvious. DISTRICT judges cannot make NATIONAL rulings.

[StatesRightsForever]

There is no such thing as district law. It's federal law or state law etc. Federal law applies federally, to the whole nation. Federal law does not change by where you are standing with your feet on the ground.... Or by where the federal courthouse is positioned on a map.

It's just dumber than dumb to take the position that Federal Law is different in every district.....sheesh!

So why have district courts?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hey stupid. That's why i said there are 89 district courts IN THE 50 STATES.

You g ot it rong, I speld it so u cud reed it

 

[AsherN]

Courts of first resort in the respective districts.

Imagine that, you file a case involving Federal law in the Federal district court where you live. If we take your assertion that a District court ruling only applies to that district, then a Federal law could have 11 different applications.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Imagine that, you file a case involving Federal law in the Federal district court where you live. If we take your assertion that a District court ruling only applies to that district, then a Federal law could have 11 different applications.

Or, a more intelligent way to look at it, that district court only rules on Federal laws as they apply to that district. The other districts can rule on how that Federal law affects their respective districts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

So then, a district judge should not be ruling on a national issue such as abortion or civil rights.

If it has already been ruled on by SCOTUS, such as the now defunct Rie v Wade, district courts can rule the same way.

Would you have accepted, prior to Dobbd, a district court ruling that each and all states can regulate abortion as they see fit?

That would be binding?

 

[toobfreak]

Imagine that, you file a case involving Federal law in the Federal district court where you live.

Go ahead. Go to your federal district court where you live and try to file a case involving stopping or changing federal law through that district court, and see where it gets you! They will tell you that you have no standing. If you did, the Fed could never get anything done because all they would ever do is fend off a million spurious lawsuits every year.

The point you somehow glaze over is the fact that if every district court has the power over deciding national federal law, then what power is left reserved onto the Supreme Court?

As it is, you've elevated the 677 appointed lower court judges OVER the Supreme Court because you've just given them the power to do BY THEMSELVES what even the Supreme Court cannot do without AT LEAST five Supreme Court justices!

The only reason this bull is getting as far as it is is because the Left found a special, partisan, activist leftwing-bot judge.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

That’s idiotic. Nine judges could never handle all the cases.

.



Yes, you think that.




.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I bet all of us, including the President, will follow SCOTUS.

 

[AsherN]

Go ahead. Go to your federal district court where you live and try to file a case involving stopping or changing federal law through that district court, and see where it gets you! They will tell you that you have no standing. If you did, the Fed could never get anything done because all they would ever do is fend off a million spurious lawsuits every year.

The point you somehow glaze over is the fact that if every district court has the power over deciding national federal law, then what power is left reserved onto the Supreme Court?

As it is, you've elevated the 677 appointed lower court judges OVER the Supreme Court because you've just given them the power to do BY THEMSELVES what even the Supreme Court cannot do without AT LEAST five Supreme Court justices!

The only reason this bull is getting as far as it is is because the Left found a special, partisan, activist leftwing-bot judge.

All cases involving Federal laws start at the district court. They will rule in your case. In cases where they see the law as unconstitutional, they rule that way. It can be accepted, and has effect nationwide, or it can be appealed, ultimately to the SC. But it all starts at the District level.

 

[Care4all]

Go ahead. Go to your federal district court where you live and try to file a case involving stopping or changing federal law through that district court, and see where it gets you! They will tell you that you have no standing. If you did, the Fed could never get anything done because all they would ever do is fend off a million spurious lawsuits every year.

The point you somehow glaze over is the fact that if every district court has the power over deciding national federal law, then what power is left reserved onto the Supreme Court?

As it is, you've elevated the 677 appointed lower court judges OVER the Supreme Court because you've just given them the power to do BY THEMSELVES what even the Supreme Court cannot do without AT LEAST five Supreme Court justices!

The only reason this bull is getting as far as it is is because the Left found a special, partisan, activist leftwing-bot judge.

It is the Federal court....it is the only place you can file a federal lawsuit that involves federal law in the region you live in or anywhere in the Nation. It's also the place federal prosecutors can prosecute you for committing a federal crime in that region....

Can you imagine if all of the judges in districts throughout the Nation were all in D.C., in one big ass court house the size of Alaska, hearing all the federal court cases in the whole country there, and all the plaintiffs or defendants had to pay for themselves, family, and lawyers to be there for their trials?? That is truly infeasible.

It's one federal court, with lots of offices (court houses) throughout the country....just like it is one FBI, with lots of offices throughout the States.

The laws in question with suit or with criminal charges, are all FEDERAL LAWS. A decision for a case in one region (district) of the country, is the same federal law on the other side of the Nation, that means all states are affected by any federal court case, wherever it takes place on a map...federal law ties the law in all the different states together.

All the federal courts, no matter where the courthouse or judge is located, belong to one federal court, the U.S. Court.


As far as judge shopping, which both political sides do in hopes of having a better shot at getting a judge that is "friendly" to their own position in the past court cases he or she has handled....there is not much that I can think of to legally change the system so that this doesn't happen anymore....but I am open to any suggestions.

 

[toobfreak]

All cases involving Federal laws start at the district court. They will rule in your case. In cases where they see the law as unconstitutional, they rule that way.

Go jerk off.

 

[toobfreak]

It is the Federal court....it is the only place you can file a federal lawsuit that involves federal law in the region

Right. So what is stopping you from getting up tomorrow and filing a lawsuit suing the president to stop national policy from being carried out, the president overwritten, and the law changed? Let us know when you get it done.

 

[Flopper]

89 federal district courts in the 50 states and their rulings should only apply in that district. That should be obvious. Can a city judge in columbus OH tell indianapolis what to do?

Hawley: End Federal District Courts' Ability to Issue Nationwide Injunctions

Monday, on FNC's "The Ingraham Angle," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) called on his colleagues on Capitol Hill to institute a moratorium on lower federal court judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. | Clips

www.breitbart.com

A federal district does not correspond to any government boundaries and there are no laws for different districts, only federal law. Federal judicial districts were created so people would not have to travel to Washington for federal trial.

The reason why ruling in a federal district court can apply outside that district is because because they're federal courts. the fact that they hear cases from states near by doesn't mean that's a limit on their jurisdiction.
If a judge ruled that some action was unconstitutional but only in a certain district would make no sense at all. If it is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional in every state.

 

[Flopper]

I guess Trump's loss in the federal court of appeals only applies within that circuit.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

All cases involving Federal laws start at the district court. They will rule in your case. In cases where they see the law as unconstitutional, they rule that way. It can be accepted, and has effect nationwide, or it can be appealed, ultimately to the SC. But it all starts at the District level.

Actually now that I think about it, that's how a lawsuit filed in New York impacted the issuance of concealed carry permits in all 50 states.

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police, et al.
597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Supreme Court of the United States, but it originated from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and went through the Second Circuit before being reversed by SCOTUS.

The Court struck down New York’s concealed carry law, which required applicants to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry license for public self-defense.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that:

The “proper cause” requirement gave too much discretion to state officials
It violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments
The Constitution protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home

This case overturned over a century of precedent in states like New York and California, where concealed carry laws required applicants to show a “special need” beyond general self-defense. The Court rejected means-end scrutiny (like intermediate scrutiny) and said courts must instead look to history and tradition when evaluating gun restrictions.

 

[Care4all]

So why have district courts?

They are federal courts for a specific territory of the Nation....so that those being charged with specific federal crimes can be in close proximity to where the crime was committed. Or those in civil suits can be in close proximity to where the perceived "wrong" occurred and the parties in the suit can be close to their business or home, and not 1500 miles away, with a court in D.C...

A federal district court is simply the Federal Court put closer to their home, instead of one centralized Court in a place like D.C. for the whole Nation.

Haven't you noticed how big and spread out we are, as a Nation? Having our federal courts put in the various regions of our country, makes good sense! Imo.

 

[j-mac]

Because Federal law is different depending where you are at. LOL

MAGA is so stupid.

Explain, if you can.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Explain, if you can.

.

Don't hold your breath.


.

 

[pknopp]

Explain, if you can.

No ideal what is there that I am supposed to explain. Federal judges rule on federal issues.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Great explanations.

j-mac is simply being obtuse because he can here.