Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

1
On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence told the right-wing Federalist Society that President Donald Trump will ask the Supreme Court to abolish the practice of “nationwide injunctions.”

“A Supreme Court Justice has to convince four of his colleagues to uphold a nationwide injunction — but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly-elected president of the United States from fulfilling his constitutional duties,” said Pence. “This judicial obstruction is unprecedented. In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court.”


Courts frequently issue injunctions, which block the government or other entities from taking a certain action. A “nationwide” injunction is an injunction that also applies to people who aren’t part of the lawsuit — and such injunctions are frequently used by both liberal and conservative litigants to prevent that government from enforcing unconstitutional laws.

Simply put, Pence is saying that lower courts should not be allowed to block the government from enforcing a law even if that law is found unconstitutional — they should only be allowed to exempt the specific person or people who sued from the law.

Reasonable legal minds have argued nationwide injunctions have grown too common and too partisan. For one thing, they encourage “forum shopping,” where lawyers who want a partisan ruling pick a specific court where they know they’ll get a partisan judge who agrees with them. A key example is the lawsuit seeking to repeal all of Obamacare, whose plaintiffs filed in North Texas so they’d get a specific right-wing judge who used to be a GOP staffer. Some academics also argue nationwide injunctions speed up debate of cases, leaving the Supreme Court with less information if it needs to review the issue.

But abolishing nationwide injunctions would cause even worse problems. As SCOTUSBlog’s Amanda Frost noted, lower-court judges wouldn’t be able to solve certain kinds of cases at all without nationwide injunctions — for example, if a school was segregated and an African-American plaintiff sued, a judge could order the school to admit that one plaintiff but not desegregate the whole school.

Moreover, nationwide injunctions are an essential limit on executive power, because modern presidential administrations can make massive changes to regulatory policy that affect millions of people at a stroke, and Congress is generally too gridlocked to check this power legislatively. Which is likely the main reason Trump wants nationwide injunctions ended — federal courts have been the main obstacle to his rolling back everything from labor laws to environmental protection to migrant rights.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/05/trump- ... onal-laws/

Just got to limit the courts so Trump can do what he wants.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

2
I keep saying: The coup d'etat against us is well under way by Trump.
Everything he does is to enhance his power, shut down dissent, shut down criticism, and, eventually lock up his critics.

So, for everyone who says they cannot bring themselves to vote for gun-control Democrat? THIS is what the alternative is: A vicious, sadistic, retrobutative, racist, sexist, lying, thieving autocrat.
He has to be gotten rid of as the first priority.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

3
YankeeTarheel wrote:I keep saying: The coup d'etat against us is well under way by Trump.
Everything he does is to enhance his power, shut down dissent, shut down criticism, and, eventually lock up his critics.

So, for everyone who says they cannot bring themselves to vote for gun-control Democrat? THIS is what the alternative is: A vicious, sadistic, retrobutative, racist, sexist, lying, thieving autocrat.
He has to be gotten rid of as the first priority.
I couldn't agree more. I don't like how gun control has become a central part of the Democratic Party platform, but the alternative is so much worse. If we allow Trump and the Republican Party to dismantle our democracy then there won't be anything left worth fighting for, we're done, and we might as well buckle up for a decade or more of horrible pain and oppression. It wasn't the German Resistance that ended the Nazi reign, it was Russia and the west. So who's coming to save us? Who's squaring up against the most powerful military in the history of the world? The Chinese, maybe? Keep dreaming. Another term of Trump/Republican rule and this country is gone for at least a decade, and I strongly stress "at least."

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

4
District courts are trial courts and injunctive relief is something they do regularly. Agreed federal court of appeals orders only extend to their circuit. Republicans forget that if SCOTUS agrees, it will backfire on them the next time they seek an injunction such as the one they got out of Texas on the ACA after lining up Rep AGs from a number of states.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

6
Trump attacks the rule of law at Twitter speed; courts rebuff him on a pre-industrial time scale. It’s like trying to swat a maniacal wasp with a musket ball.

The nature of the legal process itself helps Trump delay reckonings even when he has no case. The law is the ultimate example of “both side-ism”; it prides itself in putting even dumb and ridiculous arguments on equal footing with factual and rational analysis.
https://www.thenation.com/article/trump ... democracy/

He rapes and pillages because no one stops him. Hey, Senate. >tap tap< this thing on?

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

7
CDFingers wrote: Thu May 09, 2019 10:55 am
Image


Nope, nope, and nope.

Impeach, convict, remove, imprison, confiscate assets.

CDFingers
Do they realize how many Americans and allies died fighting scum like that? It makes want to vomit.
We sit in the mud... and reach for the stars.
Ivan Turgenev

Prevent Suicides Call https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/t ... meone-now/

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

9
In a SURPRISING ray of hope that the Supreme Court won't cave to Trump was today's ruling on Apple's attempt to end a class action suit against its App Store practices.
The Trump"Any Business Practice is Good" position was that Apple should be allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants, and to hell with "competition"! 4 Justices agreed with the Trumps: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts.

5 disagreed, and the ruling decision was written by one Justice Bret Kavanaugh....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/p ... e=Homepage
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Trump will ask the Supreme Court to forbid lower judges from blocking unconstitutional laws

10
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon May 13, 2019 2:01 pm In a SURPRISING ray of hope that the Supreme Court won't cave to Trump was today's ruling on Apple's attempt to end a class action suit against its App Store practices.
The Trump"Any Business Practice is Good" position was that Apple should be allowed to do whatever the fuck it wants, and to hell with "competition"! 4 Justices agreed with the Trumps: Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts.

5 disagreed, and the ruling decision was written by one Justice Bret Kavanaugh....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/p ... e=Homepage
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh? Strange bedfellows, it's rare but it happens.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests