Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Rod1]

yeah, he's the one to which human sacrifices were made daily, to keep the sun (himself) reappearing. the most memorable stereotypes of mesoamerican worship come from him.

Yeah, i just read it up, there are a lot of origins stories, which is pretty common when a religion gets large and starts absorbing other smaller religions.

 

[Rod1]

ain't worked out too well for the pope though.
it was a stupid aspect of the law that needed clarification one way or the other. for now, trump won. when the democrats have the presidency next time, they'll also abuse the shit out of it. power gained is not given up easily. all the democrats crying about it now will cheer it when their president will use it.

The SCOTUS put themselves above the president and since they get to choose what to take and what not to take, they can always expedite any Dem EO.

Its a stupid ass game they are playing, but such is the nature of power drunk people.

oh, and do i think it made the country worse? for sure.
why? because america, like basically everywhere, is not ruled, and will not be ruled by moral people that understand power is not to be abused. which is also true of institutions like the judiciary being flooded by political appointees and activists. it's the same shit. one side won. power itself won. it would have won either way.

American political system is broken, because Congress is broken.

This ruling basically allows the president to pass laws from his desk and makes the SCOTUS the only arbiter of when said laws are unconstitutional.

In a functioning society SCOTUS wouldn't have this much power and the president would need to follow the law.

 

[Hog-train]

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

Every court can only make decisions if there is a legit plaintiff. Even the Supreme Court. They can't just make legal rulings based on an abstract concept and no one bringing a case that affects them. And every plaintiff has different details so obviously a ruling can only be applied to that person (s.)

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.

Imagine if Trump wants to deport 6 illegal people to South Sudan and that gets challenged in court. The court rules it's unconstitutional for those 6 people and issues an injunction. Zero problem here.

But what the local courts have been doing, is that they have not only been saying "You can't deport these 6 people" but you can't deport ANY person to South Sudan.

Nationwide. For people not involved in this lawsuit.

You only have an injunction if you demand that the EO (or whatever) is halted temporary. That would take precedence over the other court's ruling, until a higher court overturns it.

There's only 3 levels of courts in the federal court system - individual federal district courts all over the country, above that are the appellate courts and above that is the Supreme Court.

So what if a district court in Atlanta rules one way and issues a nationwide injunction and at the same time another district court in Portland issues a nationwide injunction ruling the complete opposite way? Who takes precedence?

That's the problem with one local district court ruling for literally everyone in the country instead of just pertaining to the plaintiffs in that particular case.

Know what's funny though? You're trying to use that "chaos" to justify the ruling without realizing that the actual chaos is what happens after this ruling. Because now, instead of there being a nationwide injunction until legality is settled, which protects everybody, you will have certain lawsuits with protected individuals in certain areas, while other areas and people are not protected by those lawsuits. And indeed, even if said people win their lawsuit, it still doesn't guarantee legal protection for people who weren't in the lawsuit, even if their situations are identical. How does that make more sense to you?

But multiple district federal courts ruling differently is the real chaos.

 

[nhbbear]

It was only a matter of time because this has been happening a lot-especially lately. I hate to see the scotus ripped into two halves based upon who they were appointed by politically and this one will likely always be 6-3 based upon politics.

 

[Hog-train]

There’s almost no examples of that happening in the past 50 years because various courts typically work together so as not to conflict.

A nationwide injunction is not some final ruling for the whole country. It’s a temporary action to prevent harm while the full merits of a case are investigated. Let’s look back at a case where the shoe was on the other foot and a nationwide injunction was upheld by the Appeals Court.

After Obama signed the DACA EO, the state of Texas sued. They said DACA caused injury to them by forcing them to provide these people with state subsidized driver’s licenses, which have a cost. The state court issued a nationwide injunction, and that’s the only way to mitigate the potential injury. It doesn’t do any good to for the judge to say, “Ok, Texas, we won’t let DACA take effect in Texas solely,” because people with DACA status in other states could simply move to Texas, apply for a driver’s license, and cause the same injury that TX was seeking relief from.

The same thing can exist in other cases. Imagine a POTUS signs an EO with some new election guideline right before an election. What good is a ruling for a plaintiff that doesn’t apply elsewhere? What good is a ruling that only applies to one district, but no other district in the state and none of the other 49 states?

But under your Obama DACA example, what if a Houston court ruled against the DACA EO and issued a nationwide injunction for the whole country?

That wouldn't be right either. Should DACA not go into effect nationally because a court in the city of Houston said no?

Additionally, what if another lowest level court in New York ruled the opposite way?

 

[Rod1]

Every court can only make decisions if there is a legit plaintiff. Even the Supreme Court. They can't just make legal rulings based on an abstract concept and no one bringing a case that affects them. And every plaintiff has different details so obviously a ruling can only be applied to that person (s.)

This is not true, an individual case can be used to make a larger rule, and that's generally how it works.

That's why "Roe v Wade" when it was in effect applied to all citizens not just Jane Roe

Imagine if Trump wants to deport 6 illegal people to South Sudan and that gets challenged in court. The court rules it's unconstitutional for those 6 people and issues an injunction. Zero problem here.

Ok.

But what the local courts have been doing, is that they have not only been saying "You can't deport these 6 people" but you can't deport ANY person from any country to a concentration camp in South Sudan.

FTFY,

Nationwide. For people not involved in this lawsuit.

If an Executive Order is unlawful in one instance its unlawful on all of them, but this isn't even about district ruling, these judges weren't even ruling on EOs, they were just pausing them.

There's only 3 levels of courts in the federal court system - individual federal district courts all over the country, above that are the appellate courts and above that is the Supreme Court.

Yes and they are the first instance a citizen can directly appeal to and the ones that will hear you out all the time, it only makes sense for them to pause any gross executive violation of the law.

So what if a district court in Atlanta rules one way and issues a nationwide injunction and at the same time another district court in Portland issues a nationwide injunction ruling the complete opposite way? Who takes precedence?

Again, if one jury calls you guilty and the other calls you innocent, you aren't declared guilty until you can appeal, you get a new trial but in the meantime you are considered innocent.

That's the problem with one local district court ruling for literally everyone in the country instead of just pertaining to the plaintiffs in that particular case.

Injuctions aren't rulings.

But multiple district federal courts ruling differently is the real chaos.

injuctions don't cause chaos, they are literally the opposite of chaos, they are the legal version of a timeout.

 

[Hog-train]

This is not true, an individual case can be used to make a larger rule, and that's generally how it works.

That's why "Roe v Wade" when it was in effect applied to all citizens not just Jane Roe

That's because Roe vs. Wade was the Supreme Court making the ruling so it applies nationally.

But this is different because it's one lowest level local judge making a judgment on all people.

Those are two fundamentally different things.

If an Executive Order is unlawful in one instance its unlawful on all of them, but this isn't even about district ruling, these judges weren't even ruling on EOs, they were just pausing them.

But they were pausing them for ALL people nationally. It's still the same problem.

Again, if one jury calls you guilty and the other calls you innocent, you aren't declared guilty until you can appeal, you get a new trial but in the meantime you are considered innocent.

Bro this makes zero sense. If a district court in Atlanta rules guilty and a Portland judge rules innocent, those are unrelated because they are TWO DIFFERENT PLAINTIFFS. Two completely separate cases.

You can't have two different courts rule on the same plaintiff at the same time.

What are you even saying.

injuctions don't cause chaos, they are literally the opposite of chaos, they are the legal version of a timeout.

If two or even more district judges have nationwide injunctions that conflict with each other, that is the definition of chaos.

 

[Legendary]

100%.....democrats are absolutely shook that their jobs program known as "illegal immigration" is coming to an end. They know American citizens won't work for those low wages as nannies, maids, and lawn guys. The Democrat base is extremely wealthy people and everyone knows they love to hire illegals who will work for poverty wages.

Not that facts will change your mind because you are too stupid to see otherwise, but I'll give you a real world example while you spew bullshit rhetoric.

 

[Rod1]

That's because Roe vs. Wade was the Supreme Court making the ruling so it applies nationally.

But this is different because it's one lowest level local judge making a judgment on all people.

Injuctions are not rulings and not all cases go up to the Supreme Court.

Those are two fundamentally different things.

Injuctions and rulings
Executive Orders and Congressional Laws

Things that are also fundamentally different.

But they were pausing them for ALL people nationally. It's still the same problem.

How is that a problem, but the president by dictate, suspending the 14th Amendment, isn't a problem?

What is the larger problem? president dictating orders to ignore Constitutional Law or a District Judge pausing said dictates?

Bro this makes zero sense. If a district court in Atlanta rules guilty and a Portland judge rules innocent, those are unrelated because they are TWO DIFFERENT PLAINTIFFS. Two completely separate cases.

But we aren't judging people but the federal government, and the federal government is the same in Alabama or Portland.

You can't have two different courts rule on the same plaintiff at the same time.

But you can have two different courts rule on the same Executive Order

If two or even more district judges have nationwide injunctions that conflict with each other, that is the definition of chaos.

No it isn't because an injuction isn't an action, is the pausing of an action.

If one judge tells the Federal government to stop an action nationally it doesn't impacts anyone but the government itself.

 

[heloder]

So what if a district court in Atlanta rules one way and issues a nationwide injunction and at the same time another district court in Portland issues a nationwide injunction ruling the complete opposite way? Who takes precedence?

Ohhh! I get it. The problem isn't miscommunication here. The problem is that you simply can't read for shit. Here, let's try again.

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Maybe all caps will make it easier. Actually, let's make it red and bold. See if that sticks.

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

That's the problem with one local district court ruling for literally everyone in the country instead of just pertaining to the plaintiffs in that particular case.

But multiple district federal courts ruling differently is the real chaos.

So as you can now (hopefully!) see, that's actually NOT "the problem" with nationwide injunctions. The injunction is put in place, and the injunction stays in place for everybody until legality is settled. That's not "chaos" by any standard.

But I have a feeling you can be extremely entertaining to argue with, so I'd love for you to tell me how that constitutes "chaos" but every single person who wants to be protected from an illegal executive order having to file a lawsuit against the government isn't chaos.

 

[Hog-train]

Injuctions are not rulings and not all cases go up to the Supreme Court.

Makes no difference. Injunction or ruling, the local district courts can only make the decision for their case only - meaning their plaintiffs. Only the Supreme Court can do it universally for everyone.

What is the larger problem? president dictating orders to ignore Constitutional Law or a District Judge pausing said dictates?


But we aren't judging people but the federal government, and the federal government is the same in Alabama or Portland.

Dude you don't get it. That Alabama case and that Portland case has two completely different set of plaintiffs. The Alabama court can only make an injunction for their plaintiff and the same for the Portland one.

But you can have two different courts rule on the same Executive Order

Yea but only as it pertains to the specific PLAINTIFFS in their case. Every separate court has different plaintiffs in relation to the executive order.

No it isn't because an injuction isn't an action, is the pausing of an action.

If one judge tells the Federal government to stop an action nationally it doesn't impacts anyone but the government itself.

Every court case has actual plaintiffs/people dude.

A court just can't make an abstract ruling based on just a law they didn't like. Or that they didn't like an executive order. There has to be actual people affected bringing a case to the court.

So if people in Atlanta didn't like Trump's EO and took it to court there, they can get an injunction FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. It's not going to affect another set of clients in Portland who also doesn't like Trump's EO.

Ohhh! I get it. The problem isn't miscommunication here. The problem is that you simply can't read for shit. Here, let's try again.

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Are you dense?

What if a court in Atlanta does a nationwide injunction that puts a hold on the EO and another Portland court does a nationwide injunction that ALLOWS the EO?

WHICH COURT TAKES PRECEDENCE? They're the same low level district court in separate cities.

 

[Rod1]

Makes no difference. Injunction or ruling, the local district courts can only make the decision for their case only - meaning their plaintiffs. Only the Supreme Court can do it universally for everyone.

It makes a world of difference its like the difference between having to go through a criminal trial while in jail or not.

Dude you don't get it. That Alabama case and that Portland case has two completely different set of plaintiffs. The Alabama court can only make an injunction for their plaintiff and the same for the Portland one.

But this is demonstrably false i already pointed that out and you responded with "well the SCOTUS can but not lower courts" that's just arbitrary and doesn't holds out to your own argument of "all cases are different".

Because what is being ruled its not the case in particular but governmental conduct.

Yea but only as it pertains to the specific PLAINTIFFS in their case. Every separate court has different plaintiffs in relation to the executive order.

Yes, but if a judge finds a potential Constitutional violation in the order itself then its only normal for the order itself to be paused.

Every court case has actual plaintiffs/people dude.

But their rulings can implicate others

A court just can't make an abstract ruling based on just a law they didn't like. Or that they didn't like an executive order. There has to be actual people affected bringing a case to the court.

There are actual plaintiffs in the injuctions.

So if people in Atlanta didn't like Trump's EO and took it to court there, they can get an injunction FOR THEMSELVES ONLY. It's not going to affect another set of clients in Portland who also doesn't like Trump's EO.

Which effectively makes the president powerful enough to legislate from his desk, we call those people dictators.

 

[heloder]

What if a court in Atlanta does a nationwide injunction that puts a hold on the EO and another Portland court does a nationwide injunction that ALLOWS the EO?

WHICH COURT TAKES PRECEDENCE? They're the same low level district court in separate cities.

What you're saying does not make any fucking sense. Executive orders are presumed legal and proceed unimpeded unless a court issues an injunction against it. Courts don't issue "injunctions allowing EOs", because injunctions are used to STOP EOs. Furthermore, a court cannot lift an injunction put in place by another court of the same level.

And even if they could...

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

 

[Hog-train]

But this is demonstrably false i already pointed that out and you responded with "well the SCOTUS can but not lower courts" that's just arbitrary and doesn't holds out to your own argument of "all cases are different".

Because what is being ruled its not the case in particular but governmental conduct.

Government conduct as it pertains to THOSE SPECIFIC PLAINTIFFS.

You seem to be under the false impression the court just brought a court case by itself to challenge Trump's EO. That's not possible nor legal and not what happened.

Actual people personally affected by Trump's EO brought the case to court.

Yes, but if a judge finds a potential Constitutional violation in the order itself then its only normal for the order itself to be paused.

Yea for the SPECIFIC CLIENT only. So a judge found Trump violated the Constitution for THEM ONLY.

That doesn't apply universally.

But their rulings can implicate others

Only the Supreme Court can do that. Make universal rulings that affects every person in the country.

Which effectively makes the president powerful enough to legislate from his desk, we call those people dictators.

That's what executive orders are. Duh. That doesn't mean he's a dictator because the Supreme Court can overrule him and so can Congress with enough votes.

What you're saying does not make any fucking sense. Executive orders are presumed legal and proceed unimpeded unless a court issues an injunction against it. Courts don't issue "injunctions allowing EOs", because injunctions are used to STOP EOs. Furthermore, a court cannot lift an injunction put in place by another court of the same level.

You still don't seem to get it either. If an Atlanta court rules against Trump's EO and puts an injunction against it, that only applies to the specific Atlanta plaintiffs.

A local court essentially cannot give a NATIONWIDE injunction.

They can only rule for their case and plaintiffs only. That's what this Supreme Court case just decided.

And even if they could...

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

Bro not all injunctions are temporary. There are both temporary and permanent injunctions.

 

[heloder]

A plaintiff brings a court case to get an injunction but the judge rules against the plaintiff and says no. That's the ruling.

Cool! Guess what? That's not called an injunction. It's called a denial of an injunction, or a dismissal. And guess what that means?

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Bro not all injunctions are temporary. There are both temporary and permanent injunctions.

Bro that's totally neat! How does that pertain to anything that I said?

 

[Hog-train]

Cool! Guess what? That's not called an injunction. It's called a denial of an injunction, or a dismissal. And guess what that means?

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.



Bro that's totally neat! How does that pertain to anything that I said?

You still don't seem to get it. If an Atlanta court rules against Trump's EO and puts an injunction against it, that only applies to the specific Atlanta plaintiffs.

A local court essentially cannot give a NATIONWIDE injunction anymore.

Why is this so hard to understand? They can only rule for their case and plaintiffs only. That's what this Supreme Court case just decided.

 

[Rod1]

Government conduct as it pertains to THOSE SPECIFIC PLAINTIFFS.

We already went over this and its not true

You seem to still be under the false impression the court just brought a court case by itself to challenge Trump's EO. That's not possible nor legal.

No, why do you think so?

That's not what happened. Actual people personally affected by Trump's EO brought the case to court.

Yes.

Yea for the SPECIFIC CLIENT only. So a judge found Trump violated the Constitution for THEM ONLY.

That doesn't apply universally.

Again, this isn't true, a judge can or at least could, pause an executive order and kick it up to the next instance

Only the Supreme Court can do that. Make universal rulings that affects every person in the country.

Yes, the SCOTUS decided that they can do that but that's not how things used to be.

That's what executive orders are. Duh. That doesn't mean he's a dictator because the Supreme
Court can overrule him and so can Congress with enough votes

If you need SCOTUS or Congressional approval before your rights can be taken into consideration, im sorry to spell it to you, but its basically dictator territory.

You still don't seem to get it either. If an Atlanta court rules against Trump's EO and puts an injunction against it, that only applies to the specific Atlanta plaintiffs.

A local court essentially cannot give a NATIONWIDE injunction.

District courts could until the ruling give them out.

They can only rule for their case and plaintiffs only. That's what this Supreme Court case just decided.

Yes, and its a gross violation of rights, since District Courts are the first line of defense against government abuse.

 

[Rod1]

THE INJUNCTION WHICH PUTS A HOLD ON THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TAKES PRECEDENCE.

Its insane how many people were just ok with fascism, they were just missing the key component which is to have a fuhrer to deposit all the power into.

The concept of "in the case of doubt, favor the citizen" seems to be an alien concept to them, it would be like giving prosecutors the ability to put you in jail without the need of a court and when you point them out that its a gross violation of freedoms they go all "Well if the prosecutor puts you in jail, you can always plead to a judge".

Its the upside down world, instead of government having to prove why they need the power to take your rights it falls to the citizen to prove why government doesn't needs that power.

 

[heloder]

You still don't seem to get it. If an Atlanta court rules against Trump's EO and puts an injunction against it, that only applies to the specific Atlanta plaintiffs.

A local court essentially cannot give a NATIONWIDE injunction anymore.

Why is this so hard to understand? They can only rule for their case and plaintiffs only. That's what this Supreme Court case just decided.

I already quoted your post, dipshit. It's too late to edit it and then act like I'm the one who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Pretty pathetic on your part to not just own up to the fact that your argument was shit.

And yeah, I'm well aware of the SCOTUS ruling, as is everybody else in this thread. That's what we've been arguing about for the last two days.

 

[Hog-train]

I already quoted your post, dipshit. It's too late to edit it and then act like I'm the one who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Pretty pathetic on your part to not just own up to the fact that your argument was shit.

And yeah, I'm well aware of the SCOTUS ruling, as is everybody else in this thread. That's what we've been arguing about for the last two days.

WTF are you talking about. I just repeated the same thing because you don't seem to get it.

If two local district courts in two different cities have opposite rulings why should one city's court have precedence?

Example:

5 trans students in New York City sue in federal court saying taking away transition drugs for minors is unconstitutional.

8 trans students in Dallas Texas also sue in their federal court to get transition drugs for minors.

New York rules in favor of the students allowing drugs. Dallas Texas says no drugs for minors.

New York would be completely out of bounds making a nationwide ruling affecting the whole country overruling the Dallas court.

That's what you're pushing for. One court having precedence over another arbitrarily.

We already went over this and its not true



No, why do you think so?


Yes.


Again, this isn't true, a judge can or at least could, pause an executive order and kick it up to the next instance



Yes, the SCOTUS decided that they can do that but that's not how things used to be.


If you need SCOTUS or Congressional approval before your rights can be taken into consideration, im sorry to spell it to you, but its basically dictator territory.




District courts could until the ruling give them out.


Yes, and its a gross violation of rights, since District Courts are the first line of defense against government abuse.

Bro you're as dense as a rock.

Just watch the video. I'm assuming you trust a journalist like Glenn Greenwald. But there are others that break it down on Youtube too.