Democrats need to listen to Neil Gorsuch’s surprisingly good idea

[Elderberry]

Vox by Ian Millhiser Jan 29, 2020

Sometimes, it’s better to give your opponent what they want.

On Monday, the Supreme Court did something that’s become quite familiar in the Trump age: It reinstated a harsh new immigration policy that had been blocked by lower courts. This particular policy, known as the “public charge” rule, makes it easier for the United States to exclude lower-income immigrants.

The court did not explain its Department of Homeland Security v. New York decision, which is temporary — it lasts until the case makes its way through the appeals process and, most likely, to the justices’ decision on its merits. Monday’s order was split 5-4 along partisan lines.

Though the majority did not explain its decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch did pen a concurring opinion to which it is worth paying attention. It would limit the power of lower court judges to issue broad, nationwide orders suspending a federal policy. That’s what initially happened in the New York case, when a federal judge held that the public charge rule could not be enforced anywhere in the country.

In the short term, Gorsuch’s approach would obviously be an enormous boon to President Trump, as the Trump administration is behind many of the policies that are currently being blocked by lower courts.

But Democrats would actually do well to listen to Gorsuch. In the long run, they have far more to gain than the GOP from Gorsuch’s approach, which would strip liberals of a tool they’ve used to challenge Trump’s policies — but Democratic presidents have much more to fear from a too-aggressive judiciary than Republicans.

More: https://www.vox.com/2020/1/29/21094603/supreme-court-decision-on-immigration-neil-gorsuch-democrats

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Lifted from article:

Many districts are further divided into geographic “divisions.” And in at least some districts, cases filed in a particular division will be heard by a judge who sits in that division.

Was unaware federal judicial districts are further subdivided into divisions.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Lifted from article:

Many districts are further divided into geographic “divisions.” And in at least some districts, cases filed in a particular division will be heard by a judge who sits in that division.

Was unaware federal judicial districts are further subdivided into divisions.

Yes. But it's more of an administrative thing, and a judge in one division will sometimes here cases in a different division if there is a backlog or something.

The article is absolutely right, though.  I'd like to see this be one issue on which Republicans and Democrats can agree, and the time to pass something like this is now, when nobody knows which party will control the White House next.