Law No more nationwide injunctions from district judges

[Crazy Source]

The judge can stop it in the area he oversees but not for the entire nation. That's all this ruling does.

A judge that's district is in new York can't issue an order for New Mexico. They can only issue an order for his district.

That allows lawlessness to continue in other states until a slow-moving court system catches up. Again, if you think what you are doing is lawful, then why try to bypass the checks that are in place?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Worker's rights. A fairer taxation. A more focused effort on preserving our lands. @Deorum A pushback on corporate interests. That last one needs to be cleaned up on both sides. However, it was the right that got Citizen's United past the SCOTUS. I just don't see it, Rob. I appreciate your honest discussion with me. I'd share a beer anytime.

Same. I will absolutely say this public land sale aspect of the BBB is disgusting. Hopefully it gets taken out.

 

[Crazy Source]

Bro, you can save a TON on Christmas gifts by talking politics with family.

You sumbitch made me spit out my beer.

 

[HereticBD]

Its amazing how far gone the cult has gone that people are cheering that injunctions are being watered down, literally cheering for big government and "please tread on me".

Would never have been an issue if the courts weren't radicalized. It's not like this is coming out of nowhere. You've got bad actors on both sides that need to be reigned in. The unelected judges should not be able to run the country, when a guy they don't like is President. It's a shadow government. Fuck that all the same.

How 'bout the courts stay in their lane? Is everyone just supposed to go along with an obviously compromised judiciary branch, that undermines Presidential actions from either side when it's convenient? If everyone just stayed professional, this would not be an issue. That ship has sailed. Here we are. If/when the Dems take power, I highly doubt you'll be bitching when they're pushing their shit through. Is what it is. Both sides are playing for keeps, and the reset button doesn't work.

 

[oldshadow]

That allows lawlessness to continue in other states until a slow-moving court system catches up. Again, if you think what you are doing is lawful, then why try to bypass the checks that are in place?

He is not bypassing anything if he was it would have been stopped. One state cannot and should not be able to dictate what other states can do. Only at the federal level is that allowed and even that is limited by the constitution.

 

[Crazy Source]

He is not bypassing anything if he was it would have been stopped. One state cannot and should not be able to dictate what other states can do. Only at the federal level is that allowed and even that is limited by the constitution.

You aren't listening or you are being obtuse. IF laws are being broken, they can continue to be broken until the case runs up the ladder. Do you not see the opportunity for abuse here?

 

[oldshadow]

You aren't listening or you are being obtuse. IF laws are being broken, they can continue to be broken until the case runs up the ladder. Do you not see the opportunity for abuse here?

Yes but it is up to reach state. I don't know what you don't understand about the fact a judge in on district does not have the power to rule on something in another state or district. Their ruling can be cited in a case in another state but that's not the same.

 

[Crazy Source]

Yes but it is up to reach state. I don't know what you don't understand about the fact a judge in on district does not have the power to rule on something in another state or district. Their ruling can be cited in a case in another state but that's not the same.

Wow. Birthright citizenship is ingrained into America by the Constitution of the United States. And rather change it properly through governmental procedure you want to bypass it and hide behind what the executive branch wants. You want a King. I'm not down with that.

 

[Rod1]

Anything is possible but the cure is not to give local judges power over the entire nation. That goes directly against the 10th amendment

The fuck are you talking about? the 10th is about States rights, not about the president power to legislate, execute and pass judgment with EOs.

and is an large over reach. If congress wants they can make laws to limit the president's executive orders.

How come? injunctions are basically a "time out" in order to protect citizens of government overreach, they are not judgment just a "this could cause irreparable damage, so lets pause it until a higher authority can intervene".

The Supreme Court can hold an emergency session anytime. So any person including a congress person can file to stop any actions by the president.

So fuck citizens? if citizens can wait, why can't the president wait?

 

[Rod1]

Yes but it is up to reach state. I don't know what you don't understand about the fact a judge in on district does not have the power to rule on something in another state or district. Their ruling can be cited in a case in another state but that's not the same.

This sounds a lot like communist propaganda.

The idea of liberalism is that the individual rights should not be trampled by an unchecked authority, if you are removing this basic citizen right on the basis of "well the State could in theory vouch for them" you are basically giving up that basic tenent.

Which is a perfectly fine position to take, lots of people want to live under an authoritarian oligarchy.

 

[Rod1]

Would never have been an issue if the courts weren't radicalized.

Yeah no shit man

It's not like this is coming out of nowhere. You've got bad actors on both sides that need to be reigned in. The unelected judges should not be able to run the country, when a guy they don't like is President. It's a shadow government. Fuck that all the same.

unelected judges can't run the government they just can at most give a "time out" to an action made by the president.

How 'bout the courts stay in their lane? Is everyone just supposed to go along with an obviously compromised judiciary branch, that undermines Presidential actions from either side when it's convenient?

Determining whether an action carried out by government is literally the only fucking lane the Judiciary has.

If everyone just stayed professional, this would not be an issue. That ship has sailed. Here we are. If/when the Dems take power, I highly doubt you'll be bitching when they're pushing their shit through. Is what it is. Both sides are playing for keeps, and the reset button doesn't work.

"If everyone stayed professional" says the guy defending the president outright rewriting the Constitution and over a century of judiciary precedent with a fucking executive order.

 

[Rod1]

They want to try and do at a federal level what NC does with governors. The highly right wing gerrymandered state has a defacto right wing hold on state congressional power that then gives or takes away power depending on if the governor is Democrat or Republican.

Yeah, but there is a very dangerous game since there is nobody above the president when it comes to executive power.

 

[Rod1]

Anything is possible but the cure is not to give local judges power over the entire nation. That goes directly against the 10th amendment and is an large over reach. If congress wants they can make laws to limit the president's executive orders. The Supreme Court can hold an emergency session anytime. So any person including a congress person can file to stop any actions by the president.

And again, if this ruling was about a law, it wouldn't be as bad laws require a long approval process so its not necessarily bad that laws constitutionality should at least wait until the SCOTUS.

But EOs shouldn't EOs given that they have ZERO checks should be able to at least be paused at the first instance.

 

[HereticBD]

unelected judges can't run the government they just can at most give a "time out" to an action made by the president.

An ungodly amount of "time outs", which effectively makes the Presidential position pointless.

Determining whether an action carried out by government is literally the only fucking lane the Judiciary has.

And they abused the fuck out of it. They essentially act as the President. Fuck that. Nobody elected them.

"If everyone stayed professional" says the guy defending the president outright rewriting the Constitution and over a century of judiciary precedent with a fucking executive order.

Petty nonsense. All he did was take it to the Supreme Court. They ruled in his favor. It's not like Democrats haven't been bitching about the same thing for decades, and set their own precedents to combat it. Rubber is gonna meet the road eventually. You just don't like the current road that the rubber met. Guarantee you would not be freaking out if Dems cut the nuts off of Republican hack judges, much like I guarantee you didn't bitch when they introduced the nuclear option to push their judges through.

 

[oldshadow]

The fuck are you talking about? the 10th is about States rights, not about the president power to legislate, execute and pass judgment with EOs.


How come? injunctions are basically a "time out" in order to protect citizens of government overreach, they are not judgment just a "this could cause irreparable damage, so lets pause it until a higher authority can intervene".



So fuck citizens? if citizens can wait, why can't the president wait?

I know what the 10th is. No state has the right to rule over another state.

The over reach is a state or district ruling and enforce it on all the other states and districts.

The citizens have redress starting in their state and that doesn't apply out of the district or state.

 

[oldshadow]

This sounds a lot like communist propaganda.

The idea of liberalism is that the individual rights should not be trampled by an unchecked authority, if you are removing this basic citizen right on the basis of "well the State could in theory vouch for them" you are basically giving up that basic tenent.

Which is a perfectly fine position to take, lots of people want to live under an authoritarian oligarchy.

You and the democrats want that when you want one state or district to rule over the entire country.

 

[oldshadow]

And again, if this ruling was about a law, it wouldn't be as bad laws require a long approval process so its not necessarily bad that laws constitutionality should at least wait until the SCOTUS.

But EOs shouldn't EOs given that they have ZERO checks should be able to at least be paused at the first instance.

The congress and each state and/or the Supreme Court can rule and control that.

Congress can in fact pass laws to severely limit executive orders if they want. They can even over ride a presidents veto and pass laws on it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

The problem is that the executive branch can continue breaking laws until it reaches the SCOTUS. I may be wrong on that, but cases have to work their way up, right? This doesn't help the people that are being wronged. Do you not see that slowing this process down is the proper path? If this administration has such firm legal ground to do what it is doing, why rush processes forward without judicial oversight?

The SC is under no obligation to hear anything. Appealing to them does not good if they refuse to hear it, or drag their feet. And even if they do hear something, they can rule literally however they want based on nothing at all. They whole system is arbitrary.

 

[Crazy Source]

The SC is under no obligation to hear anything. Appealing to them does not good if they refuse to hear it, or drag their feet. And even if they do hear something, they can rule literally however they want based on nothing at all. They whole system is arbitrary.

It took me a little while to understand what exactly is going on. You and @BFoe laid it out. These people want a King. They want the executive to have absolute power and that is so antithetical to what America is.

 

[Limbo Pete]

It took me a little while to understand what exactly is going on. You and @BFoe laid it out. These people want a King. They want the executive to have absolute power and that is so antithetical to what America is.

Not quite
They want themselves to have absolute power over the other branches, and the executive in particular to have the power to enact a social and political transformation in line with their specific partisan views. Trump is a vessel for undoing the civil rights era shift toward progressive government and toward permanent or quasi permanent reactionary power concentration.