Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Term limits for the judges would work too.  To include the Supreme Court.

Term limits may be a good idea for judges on its own merits, but term-limited judges could still issue nationwide injunctions.

The national injunction by district court judges is independently terrible.  My proposed solution has been this:

1) Any injunction against the federal government by a federal district court judge that seeks to limit the actions of the federal government outside that judge's judicial district does not take legal effect unless/until it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals for that district.

2) Any circuit court affirmance of such an injunction must be heard within 30 days by SCOTUS. 

[Bigun]

Term limits for the judges would work too.  To include the Supreme Court.

Many people think that but I disagree.

[Sanguine]

I know how:  Limit the authority of Judges to their own jurisdictions.

Looks like they think their jurisdiction is anything federal, i.e. anything.  But, apparently they all feel that they each can rule on everything regardless of how another federal judge has ruled.

[Cyber Liberty]

Looks like they think their jurisdiction is anything federal, i.e. anything.  But, apparently they all feel that they each can rule on everything regardless of how another federal judge has ruled.

That's part of the problem.  First they "feel" something, then "think" of a way to twist the plain words of a law to fit their feelings.  Cart, meet Horse.

[txradioguy]

Term limits may be a good idea for judges on its own merits, but term-limited judges could still issue nationwide injunctions.

The national injunction by district court judges is independently terrible.  My proposed solution has been this:

1) Any injunction against the federal government by a federal district court judge that seeks to limit the actions of the federal government outside that judge's judicial district does not take legal effect unless/until it is affirmed by the Court of Appeals for that district.

2) Any circuit court affirmance of such an injunction must be heard within 30 days by SCOTUS.

But if the justices are term limited then the long term implications of some of their injunctions and rulings is blunted are they not.  The next Judge could come in and reverse what the previous judge had put in place.

The problem as I see it...especially at the Federal level is that these judges get a lifetime appointment and because of that they feel they are immune to any real rule of law and can make decisions based on their political leanings and not black letter law.

[Bill Cipher]

But if the justices are term limited then the long term implications of some of their injunctions and rulings is blunted are they not.  The next Judge could come in and reverse what the previous judge had put in place.

The problem as I see it...especially at the Federal level is that these judges get a lifetime appointment and because of that they feel they are immune to any real rule of law and can make decisions based on their political leanings and not black letter law.

No, it doesn’t work that way.  The first judge’s ruling would be final, unappealable, and res judicata as to the parties and the subject matter.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But if the justices are term limited then the long term implications of some of their injunctions and rulings is blunted are they not.  The next Judge could come in and reverse what the previous judge had put in place.

You're assuming that something about term limits would result in the quality of judges/justices being raised -- that the replacements would be more likely to get it "right."  I don't see any reason to assume that's true.  You'd be kicking out the good along with the bad, and may end up replacing an Antonin Scalia with some progressive schlub.

The problem as I see it...especially at the Federal level is that these judges get a lifetime appointment and because of that they feel they are immune to any real rule of law and can make decisions based on their political leanings and not black letter law.

But the truth is that is exactly what Democrats want - judicial activism by judges willing to push the leftist agenda when they can't what they want via Congress and the President.  So all they're going to do is appoint more of the exact same people when they get the chance to fill the vacancies created by term limits.  It's just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, it doesn’t work that way.  The first judge’s ruling would be final, unappealable, and res judicata as to the parties and the subject matter.

Right -- it's not new district court judges that may overturn rulings by other district court judges.  It's the Circuit Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court that do that.

[Bigun]

You're assuming that something about term limits would result in the quality of judges/justices being raised -- that the replacements would be more likely to get it "right."  I don't see any reason to assume that's true.  You'd be kicking out the good along with the bad, and may end up replacing an Antonin Scalia with some progressive schlub.

But the truth is that is exactly what Democrats want - judicial activism by judges willing to push the leftist agenda when they can't what they want via Congress and the President.  So all they're going to do is appoint more of the exact same people when they get the chance to fill the vacancies created by term limits.  It's just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Old article but still very relevant today:

Wall Street Journal

 November 20, 2000

 How Democrats Wage Political War

By Cleta Mitchell, a Washington attorney who has previously served as a Democratic member of the Oklahoma legislature.

In case you're bewildered by the machinations of the Gore campaign-turned-law-firm, let there be no doubt that the goings on in Florida are perfectly in keeping with the way Democrats normally think and behave. Lawsuits are a key part of the Democrats' political strategy, so nothing about Florida should surprise anyone who has spent time in the Democratic Party.

Until 1995, I was a Democrat. I've been a Democrat elected official, a party official and an active party member, so I know how Democrats think.

Democrats know and internalize, understand and are motivated by, certain ideas, concepts and principles that seem to be foreign to Republicans. And Democrats are elated that Republicans don't know or function under the same ideas. These basic rules of Democratic thinking are at work in Florida. This primer should help explain what makes the Democrats tick.

 Rule 1: If we don't win, we don't eat.

The fundamental motivation for Democrats is their understanding that winning control of government is tied to paychecks, jobs, government grants, public money for private groups and companies, government contracts, union bargaining advantages, rules by which trial lawyers bring lawsuits, and on and on. The use of government to feed friends and starve enemies is something Democrats know instinctively. Winning elections means getting or keeping a livelihood.

 Say what you will about trial lawyers, but remember this: They only get paid if their clients win. Extending that principle to politics means that various Democratic constituencies are convinced that a Democratic victory means food on the table.

 Rule 2: State courts are "home" to Democrats.

There is a reason why, of the more than two-dozen lawsuits filed in Florida by various Democrats, virtually all have been filed in state courts.

Democrats are at home in the state courts. It is where the judges are elected, often on partisan ballots. And the trial lawyers are the most ardent in overseeing who fills and keeps judicial positions.

Trial lawyers normally hate federal court, where rules are stricter and standards much higher, and where attorneys can be, and often are, sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Against the backdrop of the myriad state lawsuits filed by Democrats in Florida, and the call by the Gore campaign for even more trial lawyers to come and assist in the litigation battles there, the Bush campaign filed one legal action. It was filed in federal court as a challenge to the constitutional validity of the manual recount procedures in Florida and the absence in the statute of any objective standards for such recounts. The evidence to support the sole Republican lawsuit has unfolded on our television screens during the manual recounts conducted to date.

State courts are often a blank page to be filled in by the most clever manipulator in the courtroom. (No wonder the Democrats have brought in super-litigator David Boies.) Only a state court judge would have entertained, much less Ruled on, a lawsuit like the one filed by the Palm Beach Democratic Party, which argued that incomplete ("dimpled")
Ballots should nonetheless be counted. And that's just one example of the kinds of cases the Democrats have filed.

 Republicans depart from their customary arguments in favor of federalism, decentralization of government power and devolution of authority to the states when civil justice system and lawsuit reform are at issue. Then, the parties switch sides and it is Republicans who prefer federal courts and uniform national standards and Democrats who fight vigorously to protect their state court fiefdoms. This may seem inconsistent -- but it isn't, when one understands the hometown advantage of the Democrats and trial lawyers in state courts. Remember Rule #1.

 Rule 3, the "golden rule": He who makes the rules wins the
 Gold.

The post-election fight in Florida is the best evidence in my lifetime of the absolute supremacy of the rules-as-gold principle. Democrats understand impressively well that the rules, the regulations, the procedures and the processes will almost always dictate the outcome. In a nutshell, rules provide victories -- or defeats. Because the statutory process in Florida did not provide the result the Democrats wanted, they knew it was imperative to change the rules after the election.

When I was first elected to the Oklahoma legislature, a veteran Democrat member told me to learn the rules. He told me, "If you know the rules better than your opponent, you can beat him every time." He was right. I also learned that writing and rewriting the rules is as important as understanding them.

The legal wrangling this week in Florida is neither about  "technicalities," nor about "fairness." It is about winning. See Rule #1. Changing the rules is why the Gore campaign dispatched lawyers and organizers to Florida in the early morning hours of election night -- because the rules had to be rewritten under public pressure, either through executive or judicial decisions, in order for Al Gore  to prevail.

Changing the rules required a massive public relations effort by the Gore campaign to discredit the rules and procedures under which elections are normally conducted in the state of Florida. Changing the rules was the objective in the Gore campaign's vilification of Katherine Harris, the Republican secretary of state, for enforcing the existing laws and rules.

Any Republican who misses the 4 lessons the Democrats are teaching us on national TV these past two weeks is terribly naive. If, as a result of all this, Republicans don't commit themselves to learning and practicing the art of political war, as well as its natural extension in the courtroom, there may not be much of a GOP to kick around  anymore in the future.

[Cyber Liberty]

Old article but still very relevant today:

Good find!  I remember the Sore Loserman war on the Constitution very well.  It's the day the Rat's Lawfare strategy slipped the mask.  They've been on my short shitlist ever since, nothing has ever persuaded me otherwise, and has a lot to do with the general lack of respect for the Just-us system.

[Bigun]

Good find!  I remember the Sore Loserman war on the Constitution very well.  It's the day the Rat's Lawfare strategy slipped the mask.  They've been on my short shitlist ever since, nothing has ever persuaded me otherwise, and has a lot to do with the general lack of respect for the Just-us system.

Which is exactly why this article has resided in my file system since the day I saw it in print @Cyber Liberty

[roamer_1]

Courts inferior to the SCOTUS are creations of Congress.  They need to fix both those things.  The problem is the Congress is happy with the way things are because they can duck responsibility for whatever happens.

That's right. A president can do nothing at all about all this.
What it will take is a Congress, jealous of its powers, and willing to impeach judges wholesale - To reestablish the parameters of that power.

[roamer_1]

Many people think that but I disagree.

That's right.
The only fix is Congress. It is Congress's job to reign them in.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's right.
The only fix is Congress. It is Congress's job to reign them in.

I'd agree that is the preferred route, although there are things that SCOTUS could do that are within its legitimate purview to limit that as well.

[roamer_1]

I'd agree that is the preferred route, although there are things that SCOTUS could do that are within its legitimate purview to limit that as well.

To a degree, by taking up particular cases with that in mind, by design. They can give em a spankin.

But only Congress has teeth. Congress can impeach, and that puts all the rest on notice.

[Bigun]

To a degree, by taking up particular cases with that in mind, by design. They can give em a spankin.

But only Congress has teeth. Congress can impeach, and that puts all the rest on notice.

Congress can do more than just impeach.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The part I emphasized covers a LOT of territory.

[roamer_1]

Congress can do more than just impeach.

The part I emphasized covers a LOT of territory.

That's right, and fine. The point being that the only resolution for the current problems in the judiciary is in fact, a Congress, jealous of its powers. The judiciary abides at the behest of Congress, and no one else. And in the sense that judiciary powers are beholden to Congress (as the ones who wrote the laws the judges intend to interpret), The judicial power originates in the Congress.

To be sure, the Judiciary holds power over Congress, in that badly written law, or unconstitutional law can be overturned... But that is, by and large, just a signal for Congress to rewrite the law to serve their purpose... So in the end, again, the power of the Judiciary is at the whim of Congress.

What is the answer, as I have opined so very often, is to vote with purpose, and that purpose needs, NEEDS to be to elect a Conservative (not Republican) Congress.

[mrclose]

Which is exactly why this article has resided in my file system since the day I saw it in print @Cyber Liberty

@Bigun
@Cyber Liberty

I think that you (Bigun and Cyber) might enjoy looking this over.

N I N E  M E N  A G A I N S T  A M E R I C A

The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties

I would like to suggest that you look first at the two chapters below ... especially chapter 15.
(A must read for anyone who believes that John Roberts is the only jurist who has ever written law while on the SC!)

10. “CIVIL LIBERTIES”—FOR WHOM?

15. THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A LAW


http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Contents.html

[Bigun]

@Bigun
@Cyber Liberty

I think that you (Bigun and Cyber) might enjoy looking this over.

N I N E  M E N  A G A I N S T  A M E R I C A

The Supreme Court and Its Attack on American Liberties

I would like to suggest that you look first at the two chapters below ... especially chapter 15.
(A must read for anyone who believes that John Roberts is the only jurist who has ever written law while on the SC!)

10. “CIVIL LIBERTIES”—FOR WHOM?

15. THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A LAW


http://sovereignstates.org/books/NMAA/NineMen_Contents.html

Thanks @mrclose.  I surely will take a look at that but you can rest assured that I am well aware of the fact that law being written by courts didn't start with John Roberts.

[mrclose]

Thanks @mrclose.  I surely will take a look at that but you can rest assured that I am well aware of the fact that law being written by courts didn't start with John Roberts.

@Bigun
I suspect that you and I are much alike in our voracious reading and research habits!
      

[Bigun]

@Bigun
I suspect that you and I are much alike in our voracious reading and research habits!
      

I very certain you are right @mrclose!    

[aligncare]

@mrclose Is that a name your wife gave you?

   just joking.

(I have unexpressed thoughts all the time. This just wasn’t one of those times)

[Chosen Daughter]

It brings to mind what the Bible predicts to a nation that has fallen away from the laws of YHWH...
That someone else would eat the fat of the land, and live in your houses, right in front of your face.

I used to wonder how that was possible.
But I can see it now.

Me too Roamer.  And evil will become good

[Bill Cipher]

A national scope injunction should be limited to only those instances where it is truly and absolutely necessary to protect the interests of the party seeking it, and not just because it would be convenient or because it “makes sense.”  One of the reasons for this, in my view, is precisely because it restricts the number of other cases that might be brought in other districts, which limits the number of other judges who will have the opportunity to review the facts and the law and render an opinion on it.  This is a generally bad thing for the judicial system we have because it limits the ability of an appeals court to come to a well-reasoned decision in the matter.  Appeals courts rely a lot on the existence of numerous cases with differing opinions because it gives them a much better view of all the different aspects of a case, and oftentimes a district court may think of some aspect that the apppeals court would not have thought of on its own - not because appeals judges are stupid, but just because that is human nature, inasmuch as we are all limited, finite creatures. 

As I pointed out earlier, a national injunction stifles this process and, as a result, far from advancing the cause of the fair and efficient resolution of disputes, it stymies that process.

To my thinking, this is a very good reason to put serious limits on national injunctions.

[Chosen Daughter]

I know you weren't asking me @EdJames but I personally don't see it ever being fixed until this, or some future, president fully takes it on.

Didn't Chip Roy say he should just ignore these rulings?