Time for SCOTUS to Reign In Lower Courts?

[WorldWatcher]

Appealing the ruling is not breaking the law.

I didn't say, nor did I imply that appealing a court ruling is breaking the law.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

I didn't say, nor did I imply that appealing a court ruling is breaking the law.

WW

From post 39:
You asked for examples of where he broke the law.

I provided a list of litigation that is currently on going claiming things he did that where illegal.

Have you provided them?

 

[WorldWatcher]

From post 39:
You asked for examples of where he broke the law.

I provided a list of litigation that is currently on going claiming things he did that where illegal.

I provided the list of litigation.

The cases are about laws he's broken and their current court status.

Now whether some or all will be successful, that is TBD.

Have you provided them?

Yes.

WW

 

[0311]

The idea of lower court judges being able to issue injunctions against the United States seems to have reached its ultimate absurdity. Regardless of the merits of a particular case, these judges should not have the power to implement national policy, even for brief periods.

I think that injunctions of this kind should have to be approved by a higher court before they can be implemented. What say you?

47 is breaking law. Courts are stopping him. That's what courts are for.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Only through interpretation. They are not mentioned.

And education comes under general Welfare.

An educated population contributes to the general Welfare. No?

WW

Education was not considered “general welfare” by the founders. Education was strictly a private or local responsibility then. So it is definitely not covered.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Education was not considered “general welfare” by the founders. Education was strictly a private or local responsibility then. So it is definitely not covered.

What are you taking about? Public schools go back to the 1600’s in addition to founders setting up land grant schools for universities.

If course there was public education during the time of the founders.

WW

 

[westwall]

And when you insult (i.e. Post #12) that's ok?

Hypocrite.

WW

Yeah, I give what I get.

And you still flee from facts.

Funny that...

 

[Rigby5]

The idea of lower court judges being able to issue injunctions against the United States seems to have reached its ultimate absurdity. Regardless of the merits of a particular case, these judges should not have the power to implement national policy, even for brief periods.

I think that injunctions of this kind should have to be approved by a higher court before they can be implemented. What say you?

That is silly because of course injunctions are approved by a higher court before then can be implemented. That is what the appeals process is for.

But clearly the prisons in El Salvador violate the Geneva Conventions and it was illegal under US and international law to send anyone there.

 

[Rigby5]

Long past time.

Roberts sent a warning shot the last time, and it seems the dem district judges aren't listening.

Wrong.
Roberts agreed with the judge and warned that trying to impeach a judge was wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

The two Rinos on SCOTUS will try to sabotage Trump. Roberts and Barrett should both resign.

That makes no sense, considering that it was Roberts and Barrett who over turned a half century of Roe Vs Wade.

 

[Blaster]

That makes no sense, considering that it was Roberts and Barrett who over turned a half century of Roe Vs Wade.

They have both sided with the liberal judges recently.

 

[Rigby5]

Politically induced judges have ALWAYS presented problems due to their inability to remain impartial when it comes to group/peer pressure & identity politics.

No judge could possibly have agreed to the deportations of anyone without a hearing.
That is obviously totally illegal and can only happen in a dictatorship.

And in fact, the very existence of those prisons in El Salvador is a crime, since they obviously are abusive and use torture.

 

[Rigby5]

Somehow I doubted you complained when District Judge Mark Pittman (Texas, Appointed by Trump) struck down President Biden's actions pertaining to Student Loans.

W

The law gives the executive the discretion to forgive student loans.
But there is no law allowing for deportations without hearings.

 

[Rigby5]

No, he isn't. He is operating within the confines of his power set forth in the COTUS.

You should read it so you aren't confused.

Wrong.
The Constitution clearly gives all immigration, funding, and tariff authority to Congress, not the executive.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong.
The Constitution clearly gives all immigration, funding, and tariff authority to Congress, not the executive.

And then congress passed laws that gave leeway to the President in figuring out how to enforce those laws.

 

[Rigby5]

The 8th District Court of Appeals had previously ruled against Biden's program.

Wrong.
Biden forgiving student loans is authorized by laws passed by Congress, and harms no one.
Trump imposing tariffs and deporting people without hearings, is not within anything authorized by legislation, and are obviously very harmful to individuals.

 

[Rigby5]

I think a lower court injunction should expire after 7 days if not extended by a higher court. I also think that Congress should have the authority to suspend any federal judge short of the SCOTUS for subsequent review and corrective action if necessary. Perhaps a reprimand of some sort, short of an outright dismissal.

Wrong.
Courts interpret the law, so then are forever unless appealed.
Congress already has an impeachment capability over judges, but only if other judges agree.
But clearly the judge is correct in this case.
It is illegal to do anything to any human without a hearing.

In fact, the US is legally obligated to arrest Bukele since he is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and is guilty of war crimes.
Those prisons obviously were guilty of torture.

 

[jwoodie]

That is silly because of course injunctions are approved by a higher court before then can be implemented. That is what the appeals process is for.

Wrong. Preliminary injunctions are based on the likelihood of prevailing and irreparable harm to the plaintiff. Higher courts seldom overturn these findings by a lower court, and they are generally limited by SCOTUS decisions on questions of jurisdiction. That is why we need new law to limit the scope of these injunctions.

 

[Rigby5]

They have both sided with the liberal judges recently.

There is nothing "liberal" about the basic conservative edict that all actions forced on individuals requires a hearing. That is so basic to a republic, that we should not even need to discuss that.
Only in an evil dictatorship can you deport without a hearing.

 

[Rigby5]

And then congress passed laws that gave leeway to the President in figuring out how to enforce those laws.

True, but not to the point of bypassing the hearings required by congressional legislation.
That is not within the law, but totally in opposition to the law.
Same with all these funding cuts on congressional allocations.
They are not within executive authority.
The congressional legislation allows for presidents to negotiate on tariffs, not dictate them on their own.
The congressional legislation allows for presidents to allow asylum, not deport people without hearings.
The Congressional legislation allows for presidents to decide who to hire, not to cut whole agencies or risk lives by cutting whole programs people depend on.