It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.
[deleted]
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
21–30 of 878 posts
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#22Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state?
They need to do two things: 1. File a suit in every circuit 2. Request an injunction type that's more appropriate Given the number of babies being born every day it shouldn't be hard to do. The thing is, the US doesn't issue citizenship papers. So I suppose they need to apply for an SSN and get denied (since the baby is a non-citizen), which will show immediate harm. It also begs the question: if that baby is illegal…
One upshot may be that the law will be drastically different in the several circuits and (unless SCOTUS plans to handle everything on the emergency docket — as it did here) it will stay that way so long as SCOTUS lets the issues percolate through them (using them as laboratories, as Justice O'Connor was fond of saying).
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#23Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job. , instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the consti…
this seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?
[flagged]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#24Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job. , instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the consti…
> Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job.
It's impractical to rule on a subject before allowing parties to formulate coherent prepared arguments. Ruling on circumstantial evidence is a temporary stop, leaving the ruling up to an appellate which will invalidate it due to it being founded on circumstantial evidence. The injunctions were the practical way to allows all parties to formulate their case and make a legal reasoning for a ruling. Written law has to be incremental and narrow for interpretation. Otherwise it's an interpretive dance free for all in every case.
You have repeatedly implied that the jobs of Judges are something other than what you they are. Ofc you don't think they are doing what you think they should be. That's inconsequential.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#25Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job. , instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the consti…
> Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling.
What? That makes no sense. You can lookup which court and judge (or panel of judges) issued the injunctions. I do not understand why this non-existent anonymity would motivate a judge to issue an injunction.
> They can still strike down a law or executive branch policy.
Federal courts will only look at cases if there is a party with standing who engages in a lawsuit. If someone is being deported without due process, it will be hard for them to bring suit.
> This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later.
In general there are two reasons why these temporary restraining orders which have been issued. The first being that not doing so would cause irrevocable (or ridiculously difficult to revoke) harm (e.g., deporting people to a foreign jail). The second is that the TRO is used to stop something which seems illegal on its face (e.g. deporting people to countries from which they have never been).
> It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed.
It does alter the power dynamic of our democracy. Now, the executive branch can repeatedly perform illegal acts and only needs to stop its behavior in cases which have been decided. This checks and balances isn’t about stopping each other branch in a vacuum, the intent is to stop the government from overreaching on its citizenry. By crippling all of the lower courts, the Supreme Court has created a bureaucratic bottleneck for itself, allowing the executive branch to effectively DDoS the judicial system with case after case.
> The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job.
No, it was the judge telling the executive branch that the executive branch must recognize the citizenship of children born on US soil. Instead of actually appealing the TRO on grounds of the legality of their actions, the executive branch has decided to complain about the legality of a court telling the executive branch to stop.
Who is supposed to tell the executive branch to stop doing something illegal, congress? Part of the point of the executive branch was to allow for some expedience, congress is slow. A judge is in a perfect position to tell the executive branch to stop, they don’t need to wait on committee and are not beholden to the president. Without the ability, the executive branch can quite literally do whatever the president wants.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#26[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#27Unfortunately, the US seems to be rapidly sliding into a combination of effectively/mostly one-party rule, oligarchy, corporatocracy, and to a lesser but visible extent, theocracy.
With the US Supreme Court strongly tilted toward all four, its an extremely difficult hole to climb out of.
I don't see a dictatorship (anytime soon). Not out of any abundance of optimism, but simply that all four of those constituencies and the Supreme Court's dominant wing itself, are highly aligned with each other, and would all lose out if it goes that far.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#28Unfortunately, the US seems to be rapidly sliding into a combination of effectively/mostly one-party rule, oligarchy, corporatocracy, and to a lesser but visible extent, theocracy. With the US Supreme Court strongly tilted toward all four, its an extremely difficult hole to climb out of. I don't see a dictatorship (anytime soon). Not out of any abundance of optimism, but simply that all four of those constituencies a…
[deleted]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#29[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#30https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.
>class action
What you describe is voting
We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action.
Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come up with a lot of reasons why, which are structural in many cases, but the fact remains that the majority of people are not involved in the political process at all, have no desire to be an actively reject any opportunity to be.
Assuming that citizens would all of a sudden become involved because it requires a lawsuit, means that there’s the capacity to do so, which does not exist, and all we need is a catalyst.
If the number of possible catalysts that have already happened in the last decade we’re not sufficient then nothing short of a literal terminator Skynet scenario is going to cause people to take action and I’m increasingly doubtful that even that would do it.
Based on my observation from my work position, people are ready to just roll over onto their backs and have robots slice them from the belly up, because it’s easier than actually doing something that would prevent it.