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

[Lesh]

His ruling should only apply in that district. THINK

Sorry. He’s a FEDERAL judge

It doesn’t work that way and Hawley is an idiot

 

[Flopper]

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.

You would have better chance of getting into court if you sue the federal goverment than the president. There are many barriers to suing a sitting president.

If you sue the government for violation of the constitution or federal law, you will get a hearing before a federal judge sometime in next year or so. If you can produce a convincing brief that an immediate hearing is needed, then you will probably get it. However, unless you can convince the judge that you have a sound case, you will have a very short hearing and your case will be dismiss.
Organizations such as the ACLU, NRA, National Unions, etc have staffs of constitutional lawyers and specialist in the various parts of federal law. This makes it fairly easy to get a hearing from one of the 644 district federal judges.

 

[MagicMike]

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

Hawley is wrong. Federal law applies everywhere within the borders of the U.S.A. and supercedes state law.

 

[Godboy]

and maybe gop states shouldn't be forum shopping in Texass for right wing maga judges.

So we agree that forum shopping is a massive issue that needs to be fixed?

 

[konradv]

So we agree that forum shopping is a massive issue that needs to be fixed?

No, it’s the way the system works.

 

[Godboy]

No, it’s the way the system works.

So you are in favor of the GOP engaging in judge shopping? You arent interested in fixing the issue?

 

[konradv]

So you are in favor of the GOP engaging in judge shopping? You arent interested in fixing the issue?

What issue? That’s what SCOTUS is for, to settle issues. It’s not Trump’s place.

 

[Godboy]

What issue? That’s what SCOTUS is for, to settle issues. It’s not Trump’s place.

Yeah, maybe after the adminstrations goals are stalled for a couple years as it goes through the appeals process. Wouldnt a better solution be to require the SCOTUS to pick up any national injunction the very next day? Wouldnt that solve the issue of judge shopping to stall political opponents from fulfilling their policies?

 

[pknopp]

Yeah, maybe after the adminstrations goals are stalled for a couple years as it goes through the appeals process. Wouldnt a better solution be to require the SCOTUS to pick up any national injunction the very next day? Wouldnt that solve the issue of judge shopping to stall political opponents from fulfilling their policies?

The court has to hear the case. Duscuss the case. Develop a ruling. It's never going to be immediate especially with Trump throwing so much at the courts.

 

[Concerned American]

The court has to hear the case. Duscuss the case. Develop a ruling. It's never going to be immediate especially with Trump throwing so much at the courts.

Trump doesn't file the frivolous challenges. Try again.

 

[pknopp]

Trump doesn't file the frivolous challenges. Try again.

Tulips are blooming.

 

[konradv]

Yeah, maybe after the adminstrations goals are stalled for a couple years as it goes through the appeals process. Wouldnt a better solution be to require the SCOTUS to pick up any national injunction the very next day? Wouldnt that solve the issue of judge shopping to stall political opponents from fulfilling their policies?

SCOTUS doesn’t usually make rulings on the fly. That’s a recipe for chaos, but that’s apparently what Trump wants!

 

[Godboy]

SCOTUS doesn’t usually make rulings on the fly. That’s a recipe for chaos, but that’s apparently what Trump wants!

Im not asking them to make a ruling on the fly. Im asking for the years of appeals to be bypassed. Dont you agree with that solution?

 

[MagicMike]

Im not asking them to make a ruling on the fly. Im asking for the years of appeals to be bypassed. Dont you agree with that solution?

If it was possible for "years of appeals to be bypassed" Trump would be sitting in prison right now instead of in the White House.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Im not asking them to make a ruling on the fly. Im asking for the years of appeals to be bypassed. Dont you agree with that solution?

Depends.

We're mixing a couple of different things:

#1 Jurisdiction
Under the Constitution the SCOTUS has two areas of jurisdiction. "Original" jurisdiction and "Appellate" jurisdiction. For very limited cases the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and the trial of fact. On ALL OTHER cases the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction and the lower courts are the trial of fact. On other words the lower courts try the case review the evidence and enter a ruling based on the evidence and the law.

#2 Decisions on the Merits
Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunctions are just that temporary based on certain legal conditions. One, the petitioner has standing. Two, the petitioner shows harm. Three, the petitioner show through their pleading and submissions (evidence) they are likely to succeed on the merits of the argument. (IIRC correctly there is a 4th conditions, but it escapes me in the moment.). All of the condition's have to be determined in the favor of the plaintiff (with an examination of counter submissions) by the court. Then the case proceeds to the hearing with more detailed briefs, presentation of evidence, and possibly testimony by those involved and/or expert witnesses.
.
.
.
.
In the recent cases based on Trump's (alleged) illegal actions - we have NOT proceeded to the point where the merits have been fully examined by the District Courts.

The TRO's and Injunctions have been issued pretty quickly, some of them have been challenged to the Circuit Court, and on to the SCOTUS - but in any case the SCOTUS has NOT issued decisions on the merits of the cases. That have to proceed through the district, to the appeals, to the SCOTUS for appellate review.

So while it may take a year or two for a full appellate decision on the merits, the timeline for the Appeals Court to rule on a TRO/Injunctions validity and the SCOTUS to deal with appeals through the "Shadow Docket" doesn't take anywhere near that long.

WW

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Trump doesn't file the frivolous challenges. Try again.

Of course he does. He is the master of lawfare.

 

[Godboy]

Depends.

We're mixing a couple of different things:

#1 Jurisdiction
Under the Constitution the SCOTUS has two areas of jurisdiction. "Original" jurisdiction and "Appellate" jurisdiction. For very limited cases the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction and the trial of fact. On ALL OTHER cases the SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction and the lower courts are the trial of fact. On other words the lower courts try the case review the evidence and enter a ruling based on the evidence and the law.

#2 Decisions on the Merits
Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunctions are just that temporary based on certain legal conditions. One, the petitioner has standing. Two, the petitioner shows harm. Three, the petitioner show through their pleading and submissions (evidence) they are likely to succeed on the merits of the argument. (IIRC correctly there is a 4th conditions, but it escapes me in the moment.). All of the condition's have to be determined in the favor of the plaintiff (with an examination of counter submissions) by the court. Then the case proceeds to the hearing with more detailed briefs, presentation of evidence, and possibly testimony by those involved and/or expert witnesses.
.
.
.
.
In the recent cases based on Trump's (alleged) illegal actions - we have NOT proceeded to the point where the merits have been fully examined by the District Courts.

The TRO's and Injunctions have been issued pretty quickly, some of them have been challenged to the Circuit Court, and on to the SCOTUS - but in any case the SCOTUS has NOT issued decisions on the merits of the cases. That have to proceed through the district, to the appeals, to the SCOTUS for appellate review.

So while it may take a year or two for a full appellate decision on the merits, the timeline for the Appeals Court to rule on a TRO/Injunctions validity and the SCOTUS to deal with appeals through the "Shadow Docket" doesn't take anywhere near that long.

WW

So in other words, you would prefer to not change anything and make every administration be at the whims of politically shopped judges?

 

[MagicMike]

So in other words, you would prefer to not change anything and make every administration be at the whims of politically shopped judges?

An administration is never "at the whims" of judges if it operates within the law.

 

[toobfreak]

Josh Hawley is a joke. A member of the Jan 6 plot.

That must mean that Hawley is spot on.

And someone who makes idiotic claims like this to keep the knuckledraggers entertained.

But wouldn't that include you and your hairy cousins? Lift those arms, boy! Oh wait--- I forgot--- you're incapable of being entertained.

Besides, Congress cannot dictate the jurisdiction of the courts.

Congress CREATES and DEFINES the district courts, jackass. Do please tell me where these courts are defined in the constitution?

But the know nothings don’t understand that.

That must include you then. The district courts by law have no jurisdiction beyond the plaintiff and defendant in their court room. There is no such thing as a national or universal edict even defined in the law. By law, for them to issue a ruling affecting the entire country, it would have to be filed as a class action ruling, and none of them have.

 

[pknopp]

So in other words, you would prefer to not change anything and make every administration be at the whims of politically shopped judges?

It all ends at the same place. It all gets put on hold and appealed until getting there.