Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Crazy Source]

Be careful what you say about the gay guy or you may be viewed as homophobic

Seen one up close confirmed.

 

[avenue94]

The SCOTUS gets to decide if it violates the law or not.


I already answered this.



If you don't see the problem with political judge shopping to constantly disrupt an elected opponent's administration then I don't know what else to tell you.

Judge assignments can be randomized, which is actually the solution that the GOP fought a few years ago.

 

[Mr Holmes]

What has the 9th Circuit done?

Are you sure you don't have your numbers mixed up and are thinking of FDA v Alliance, when a Trump appointee invented standing for a client and ordered a nationwide injunction for mifepristone in one of the worst judicial decisions of recent years? That rolls up into the 5th Circuit, which is hands down the worst circuit in the country.

I can't remember the specifics but I recall during Glumfs first term they struck down something he was trying to do without it even being challenged. They found a way to sneak the ruling into a completely unrelated case.

 

[HereticBD]

Guilty until proven innocent is the new American motto.

When wasn't it? It's a bumper sticker. Fact of the matter is, when you get charged with a crime, you're automatically guilty enough to need to bribe the courts for your release from jail. Same as it ever was.

 

[avenue94]

I can't remember the specifics but I recall during Glumfs first term they struck down something he was trying to do without it even being challenged. They found a way to sneak the ruling into a completely unrelated case.

So you can't remember the specifics but are convinced of them?

It sounds like you get your news from twitter and don't think very critically about it.

 

[Mr Holmes]

So you can't remember the specifics but are convinced of them?

It sounds like you get your news from twitter and don't think very critically about it.

You remember every article you read 5 years ago? You sound like a douche.

 

[avenue94]

You remember every article you read 5 years ago? You sound like a douche.

If I'm going to cite it to buttress my point, I remember it or at least have enough information to google it and recall it.

 

[BFoe]

If I'm going to cite it to buttress my point, I remember it or at least have enough information to google it and recall it.

I empathize with this, I am cursed with a weird memory like that too.

 

[oldshadow]

If a federal action is unconstitutional in one state is unconstitutional in all of them since its federal.

That's the idea behind the Supreme Court not district courts.

 

[Rod1]

That's the idea behind the Supreme Court not district courts.

Sure, that's why an injuction isn't a ruling, its an injuction to prevent irreparable damage from taking place.

 

[White Whale]

Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

nypost.com

Katanji Brown Jackson dissent so was bad everyone is ripping on her including other Supreme Court judges.

She also likely used AI to write it.

 

[Rod1]

Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson over dissent in birthright citizenship case

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett stunned veteran bench watchers Friday with a blunt takedown of liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

nypost.com

Katanji Brown Jackson dissent so was bad everyone is ripping on her including other Supreme Court judges.

She also likely used AI to write it.

Did you read the entire thing or just the highlighted part?

 

[Hog-train]

Glenn Greenwald explains it pretty well.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Did you read the entire thing or just the highlighted part?

why bother? it got fully destroyed by Amy

 

[Hog-train]

Here, let me try to make it simpler for you.

- Trump wants to do something illegal to a group of people.

- If courts can institute a nationwide injunction, these people are protected until the legality can be settled.

- If courts can't institute a nationwide injunction, Trump can do said illegal thing to any of those people who aren't actively part of a lawsuit against the US government for this issue.

That's actually not what was just decided. What the decision says is that if a lower court issues a ruling for that group of people (who brought that lawsuit), it only applies to THAT group of people and not nationwide.

Only the Supreme Court can decide for the entire country.

Otherwise, imagine if we have a lower court in one state rule one way with a nationwide injunction, but another judge somewhere else rules the opposite. Well then who's nationwide injunction gets precedence?

 

[avenue94]

Otherwise, imagine if we have a lower court in one state rule one way with a nationwide injunction, but another judge somewhere else rules the opposite. Well then who's nationwide injunction gets precedence?

Then it's appealed to the Court of Appeals, which is already what happens when there are conflicts between district courts.

There's no silver bullet here, but it's insane to argue that in this case we should have different standards for US citizenship based on how individual districts rule.

 

[Rod1]

why bother? it got fully destroyed by Amy

So you do agree that the president can suspend any given Constitutional right by EO pending review by the SCOTUS? just to make things clear.

Because that is the crux of the issue here.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

So you do agree that the president can suspend any given Constitutional right by EO pending review by the SCOTUS? just to make things clear.

Because that is the crux of the issue here.

i'm not agreeing to anything. i'm just here for the beatdown.

 

[Rod1]

That's actually not what was just decided. What the decision says is that if a lower court issues a ruling for that group of people (who brought that lawsuit), it only applies to THAT group of people and not nationwide.

So only people with money and resources have Constitutional rights? i don't follow.

Only the Supreme Court can decide for the entire country.

Injuctions aren't decisions, its funny how Amy calls district judges "imperial judiciary" when the SCOTUS has yet again given themselves more power with this move.

Otherwise, imagine if we have a lower court in one state rule one way with a nationwide injunction, but another judge somewhere else rules the opposite. Well then who's nationwide injunction gets precedence?

Imagine half a jury chooses guilty and the other half chooses innocent.

Which one gets precedent? ultimately in a liberal democracy, the law, in cases of doubt, always favor the individual natural rights against government overreach.

But America is drifting further and further into fascistic collectivism, where the State in representation of the collective takes priority.

 

[Rod1]

i'm not agreeing to anything. i'm just here for the beatdown.

What a fucking wimp.

Ill ask a more specific question, do you agree with Amy that a District Judge pausing an EO removing a Constitutional right is "imperial judiciary".