Time for SCOTUS to Reign In Lower Courts?

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.
Deporting without a hearing or leaving someone in a prison known for torture, is "irreparable harm".
Making the executive bring back someone to US courts harms no one.

You don't need to go all the way to the SCOTUS to overturn a judicial injunction.
There is nothing wrong with the current system of the judiciary.
The current problem is that the executive is in blatant violation of the basic RULE OF LAW.
No other civilized country would ever have deported anyone without a hearing.
That is primal to the rule of law.

 

[Rigby5]

Considering that the agencies that he is cutting funding to don't have any legal right to even exist under the Constitutions, I'd say YES.

Not true.
All existing agencies were created by Congress.
Even the Department of Education that Carter originated, has been backed by congressional legislation.

And the Department of Education was created under the authority of the 14th amendment, since "separate but equal" obviously was a lie when it came to school quality.

 

[Rigby5]

Which ones hasn't he executed?

Immigration, tariffs, and funding are all entirely congressional jurisdiction, and not executive.

 

[Rigby5]

the function must be a power granted by the Constitution education is not a power granted.

Wrong.
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution and clearly ensures education is uniformly available to all people in all states. Obviously, the only way to do that is from the federal level, for equal funding, access, and quality.

 

[Rigby5]

Both come under the defense parts of the Constitution here is an abstract of the relevant section on Article One Section Eight: "...provide for the common Defence..."

The Founders were clear they did not at all even want any standing military except for training bases. Providing for the common defense meant arms depots distributed in states so that a militia could quickly be raised if we were to be attacked.
Things like aircraft carriers and space forces are clearly offensive and against the "common defense" authorization of the Constitution.

 

[task0778]

Courts interpret the law, so then are forever unless appealed.

Or overturned. Or Congress changes the law.

Congress already has an impeachment capability over judges, but only if other judges agree.

??? Since when do other judges have a say in the impeachment process? Prove me wrong.

But clearly the judge is correct in this case.

That so? I think the judge overstepped his authority, whether he was right or wrong it was not his prerogative to make the ruling he did.

It is illegal to do anything to any human without a hearing.

I do believe that any person currently living here in the USA has certain rights regardless of their citizenship status, even if they are here illegally. Your statement is a little too broadbrush though IMHO.

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.

I kinda doubt that. Legally obligated? Under what law? Arrest him, or anyone else? Under what authority? Do we arbitrarily get to determine who and where Geneva conventions have been violated? And assume guilty prior to any trial? You stated all these things as fact, but nothing in your post is factual. It's all opinion, which you are entitled to but not your own facts.

 

[Rigby5]

the sentence about general welfare is not a power again if it were they wouldn't have needed to list any powers as being granted to Congress that would cover everything.

Still ignoring the 14th amendment, which is part of the Constitution.
While not originally, clearly education is a right and has to be universal, not by state standards.

 

[jwoodie]

Wrong.
Deporting without a hearing or leaving someone in a prison known for torture, is "irreparable harm".
Making the executive bring back someone to US courts harms no one.

You don't need to go all the way to the SCOTUS to overturn a judicial injunction.DISTRIC
There is nothing wrong with the current system of the judiciary.
The current problem is that the executive is in blatant violation of the basic RULE OF LAW.
No other civilized country would ever have deported anyone without a hearing.
That is primal to the rule of law.

Try to stay focused. The subject of this thread is federal DISTRICT judges issuing NATIONAL injunctions. Unless Congress and/or SCOTUS clarify this issue, these injunctions will continue to be influenced by the POLITICAL leanings of individual judges.

 

[Rigby5]

Or overturned. Or Congress changes the law.

??? Since when do other judges have a say in the impeachment process? Prove me wrong.

That so? I think the judge overstepped his authority, whether he was right or wrong was not his prerogative to make the ruling he did.

I do believe that any person currently living here in the USA has certain rights regardless of their citizenship status, even if they are here illegally. Your statement is a little too broadbrush though IMHO.

I kinda doubt that. Legally obligated? Under what law? Arrest him, or anyone else? Under what authority? Do we arbitrarily get to determine who and where Geneva conventions have been violated? And assume guilty prior to any trial? You stated all these things as fact, but nothing in your post is factual. It's all opinion, which you are entitled to but not your own facts.

I agree Congress or the courts can change the legislation.

The judiciary presides over any impeachment process, since it is hearing.
{...
The Senate holds an impeachment trial. In the case of a president, the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice presides.
...}

The 14th amendment forces all judges to protect the rights of all individuals.
Since the deportation was without a hearing, it was a violation of rights that all judges should have ruled against.

The need for a hearing is not due to the rights of individuals as much as it is the lack of government authority. Deportation causes harm to the individual. Government authority exists only by the use of the delegated authority from the defense of individual rights. So when not in obvious defense of the rights of someone else, then government can not act.
If someone is trying to harm others with a weapon, police can shoot them.
But an illegal immigrant is not a clear harm to anyone, so requires judicial review before being harmed.

When congress ratified the Geneva Conventions, they became US law.
The El Salvador prisons obviously employ torture, so are in violation of US and international law. So giving Bukele money was illegal.
While the courts have the final say, the crimes by Bekele are obvious.
Makes MS-13 look like the good guys.

 

[Rigby5]

Try to stay focused. The subject of this thread is federal DISTRICT judges issuing NATIONAL injunctions. Unless Congress and/or SCOTUS clarify this issue, these injunctions will continue to be influenced by the POLITICAL leanings of individual judges.

Wrong.
Any federal judge obviously has jurisdiction over any federal act or legislation.
As the SCOTUS has said, the correct legal process is to appeal to a high federal court.
You cannot nullify a judicial ruling except by a higher one.
The whole point of judges existing is that they have the least "political leaning" in their decisions.
The legislative and executive are vastly worse.
So there is no way to make it better.

And clearly the executive was totally wrong in this case.
It is always illegal to deport anyone for any reason, without a hearing.
Even detaining someone requires a hearing within 24 hours.
There were dozens of laws violated in this mass deportation.
For example, most of them were from Venezuela, so were required by law to be deported back to Venezuela, not El Salvador, and not to prisons without trials.
This is basic Rule of Law.
The violations by Trump were numerous and fundamental.

 

[Rigby5]

Appealing the ruling is not breaking the law.

But Trump did not try to appeal the ruling, and instead tried to impeach the judge, which is illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
The 14th amendment authorized the feds to protect individual rights, which includes an equal education.

 

[postman]

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?

Then you would have to give the courts of appeal, or even the supreme court, original jurisdiction in matters effecting the entire nation.

 

[postman]

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.

Remember, that every precedence that the supreme court later overturns, involves lower court judges disagreeing with the current decision of the supreme court.

You would have congress go after the judge(s) who didn't follow Roe v Wade, that is, until Dobbs.

 

[postman]

Wrong.
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution and clearly ensures education is uniformly available to all people in all states. Obviously, the only way to do that is from the federal level, for equal funding, access, and quality.

Basically everybody is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the several states.

 

[jwoodie]

Then you would have to give the courts of appeal, or even the supreme court, original jurisdiction in matters effecting the entire nation.

No, you would simply limit the district court's power to issue a preliminary injunction to its own district. Courts of appeal could then extend these injunctions if warranted.

 

[80zephyr]

Immigration, tariffs, and funding are all entirely congressional jurisdiction, and not executive.

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary,
Although the US Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to levy taxes, including tariffs, Congress has passed laws allowing the President to impose tariffs for national security reasons unilaterally.
Here's the deal: Per the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the purse strings. It decides how much money gets spent and where it goes. If a president withholds or delays funds Congress set aside for specific programs, it's called budget impoundment.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.
The 14th amendment authorized the feds to protect individual rights, which includes an equal education.

You need to show us where education is mentioned as a right anywhere in the Constitution of Bill of Rights.