Author Topic: Trump Administration Will Ask Supreme Court To End Nationwide Injunctions, Pence Says  (Read 3971 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
That wasn't a persOnal attack.  Quit being such a snOwflake.

It's only complicated to Liberals who want everything either overturned if it doesn't go in their favor or enforced it it does...by what was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government.

The judicial branch has usurped powers it was never designed to have.

But that's how Liberals like yourself want it since most of your Socialist measures you want to impose on us never pass muster at the ballot box.

Again, thank you for the personal attacks. 

With respect to the definition of jurisdiction, it is actually rather complicated, and that has nothing to do with one’s political predilections.  Long-standing rules of jurisdiction give state and federal courts authority and power over a wide range of out-of-state persons and things.  And, to the extent a court has jurisdiction to render a judgment against an out-of-state person, it has jurisdiction to fashion a remedy that will address the harm caused by that person that was the subject of the suit.  That would include in appropriate circumstances injunctive relief as well as, for example, monetary damages. 

I am not saying that national injunctions should become the order of the day, but they are not unheard of and are not ipso facto a usurpation or authority. 

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Define “jurisdiction”, particularly with respect to a court.

Please explain how any of those types of jurisdictions apply to nationwide injunctions.
The Republic is lost.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Please explain how any of those types of jurisdictions apply to nationwide injunctions.

Because they all give a state or federal district court the power to issue judgments against persons who are not physically present within the geographic limits applicable to that court.  In a suitable case, the only reasonable remedy might be a national injunction. 

Don’t introduce issues you don’t want to deal with.  Jurisdiction is a complicated subject. 

As I said above, I have no problems with the Supreme Court reviewing the issue and putting tighter constraints on them.  I have issues with people who, for partisan political purposes, try to pretend that it’s just a simple case of bad judges illegally usurping authority they don’t have. 

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Please explain how any of those types of jurisdictions apply to nationwide injunctions.

I'm sure someone has argued before some of these courts that immigrants themselves are part of the stream of commerce.  The whole "minimum contacts" analysis accepts as a premise that the vast majority of an entity's operations can be outside a particular state, but jurisdiction still lies.

What is really needed are different jurisdictional rules for when the federal government is a party to a case versus when we're talking about a private company that has national operations.  Maybe there's a good constitutional argument for why that is true already, though I haven't yet read it.  Still seems the proper route for this is for the Congress to use its power under Article III, Section 1 to more clearly delineate exactly how much judical power each "inferior court" should have.  I'd honestly consider that a huge priority that should have been handled while the GOP still controlled both houses of Congress.

But maybe the Supreme Court will step in anyway.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
I'm sure someone has argued before some of these courts that immigrants themselves are part of the stream of commerce.  The whole "minimum contacts" analysis accepts as a premise that the vast majority of an entity's operations can be outside a particular state, but jurisdiction still lies.

What is really needed are different jurisdictional rules for when the federal government is a party to a case versus when we're talking about a private company that has national operations.  Maybe there's a good constitutional argument for why that is true already, though I haven't yet read it.  Still seems the proper route for this is for the Congress to use its power under Article III, Section 1 to more clearly delineate exactly how much judical power each "inferior court" should have.  I'd honestly consider that a huge priority that should have been handled while the GOP still controlled both houses of Congress.

But maybe the Supreme Court will step in anyway.

Actually, I think it was that because immigrants were free to travel across state lines that an injunction limited to, say, Texas would be an ineffective remedy if an immigrant who was in Texas, and a beneficiary of the ruling, subsequently moved to a different state.  I think that was part of the rationale in the fifth circuit.   

I agree that tighter controls need to be placed to limit when a district court, in particular, can issue a national injunction. 

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Because they all give a state or federal district court the power to issue judgments against persons who are not physically present within the geographic limits applicable to that court.  In a suitable case, the only reasonable remedy might be a national injunction. 

Don’t introduce issues you don’t want to deal with.  Jurisdiction is a complicated subject. 

As I said above, I have no problems with the Supreme Court reviewing the issue and putting tighter constraints on them.  I have issues with people who, for partisan political purposes, try to pretend that it’s just a simple case of bad judges illegally usurping authority they don’t have.

Thank you for making my argument. The nationwide injunctions recently issued against various policy positions by the Trump admin were way outside a district court's authority, particularly the travel ban as it pertained from those coming into this country from other nations, as ultimately proved by the SCOTUS.
The Republic is lost.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Thank you for making my argument. The nationwide injunctions recently issued against various policy positions by the Trump admin were way outside a district court's authority, particularly the travel ban as it pertained from those coming into this country from other nations, as ultimately proved by the SCOTUS.

Not necessarily. 

But then again, I suppose you vigorously opposed the national injunctions that were issued against the Obama administration, didn’t you. 

Offline Free Vulcan

  • Technical
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,683
  • Gender: Male
  • Ah, the air is so much fresher here...
Not necessarily. 

But then again, I suppose you vigorously opposed the national injunctions that were issued against the Obama administration, didn’t you.

Actually yes.
The Republic is lost.

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Actually yes.

Good.  That being said, a national injunction is not a per-se usurpation of power not granted to the courts.  If it has been used overbroadly, then it should be cut back by the imposition of new limits, by the Supreme Court or by Congress.   But let’s not try to make it something it is not.  No sense going after straw men men there are valid arguments to be had elsewhere.

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Quote
I am not saying that national injunctions should become the order of the day, but they are not unheard of and are not ipso facto a usurpation or authority.

And yet they HAVE become the order of the day. 

How can it nOt be a usurpation of Executive branch power when they are overstepping their reach to stop something the President is by design of the three branches of Government allowed to do?
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
And yet they HAVE become the order of the day. 

How can it nOt be a usurpation of Executive branch power when they are overstepping their reach to stop something the President is by design of the three branches of Government allowed to do?

If they’re being applied overbroadly, then they can and should be reined back in.  That’s what the tiered court system is for; it’s very good at policing itself.  If the Supreme Court can’t rein it in, then congress can always legislate limits.  Again, that’s the way the system is supposed to work. 

And it is very much the business of the courts to determine when the executive has overstepped its bounds, and to fashion a reasonable remedy for the damage caused by the executive’s overstepping.  That is the “checks” part of the checks-and-balances system of government. 

That part is relatively simple. 

Offline Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,867
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Actually, I think it was that because immigrants were free to travel across state lines that an injunction limited to, say, Texas would be an ineffective remedy if an immigrant who was in Texas, and a beneficiary of the ruling, subsequently moved to a different state.  I think that was part of the rationale in the fifth circuit.   

I agree that tighter controls need to be placed to limit when a district court, in particular, can issue a national injunction.

I think tighter limits should be placed, but I don't know that SCOTUS is the proper tool for the job.  An act of Congress would be better.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
If they’re being applied overbroadly, then they can and should be reined back in.  That’s what the tiered court system is for; it’s very good at policing itself.  If the Supreme Court can’t rein it in, then congress can always legislate limits.  Again, that’s the way the system is supposed to work. 

And it is very much the business of the courts to determine when the executive has overstepped its bounds, and to fashion a reasonable remedy for the damage caused by the executive’s overstepping.  That is the “checks” part of the checks-and-balances system of government. 

That part is relatively simple.

Except the President hadn’t overstepped any boundaries  of his executive branch powers. Especially with the ban in immigrants from terror sponsoring nations.

The only ones who stepped out of bounds were the Obama appointed Progressive judges who decided they...not the President or Congress get to set immigration policy.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Bill Cipher

  • Guest
Except the President hadn’t overstepped any boundaries  of his executive branch powers. Especially with the ban in immigrants from terror sponsoring nations.

The only ones who stepped out of bounds were the Obama appointed Progressive judges who decided they...not the President or Congress get to set immigration policy.

That’s the open question. The court decided he had. That is the job of the courts. 

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
That’s the open question. The court decided he had. That is the job of the courts.

It's not the job of the courts O...I mean Bill...when the President is clearly within his rights grated to the Executive Branch.  The only over reach is by the Judicial who is usurping powers they haven't been granted in a clearly biased political move..
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,707
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
That’s the open question. The court decided he had. That is the job of the courts.

Apparently, the courts are empowered to decide whether or not the President has overstepped his authority only when he has actually overstepped his authority.

Or...something like that.