Into the Night
Contributor
Abortion for convenience is not a life threatening pregnancy.
Activist judges shouldn’t block the will of the people
- Thread starter Truth Detector
- Start date
Into the Night
Contributor
No court has authority to change the Constitution, Poorboy. Don't try to hide behind the document you despise.
Who said it was?
FastLane
Verified User
Activist judges are going to get all Article III judge power reduced.
Into the Night
Contributor
You. Your strawman won't work, Sybil. Denying your own posts won't work either.
Into the Night
Contributor
Probably not. Activist judges never had any power over the President's authority of the executive branch to begin with. They can be ignore, should be impeached and removed from office, and disbarred.
Nothing in Article III has to be amended.
Moi?
FastLane
Verified User
Regardless of what you think Article III judges ability to issue a nationwide TRO is about to be curtailed.
Into the Night
Contributor
Denying your own posts won't work, Sybil. It never does.
Into the Night
Contributor
Nothing in Article III allows such a ruling by any judge to overrule Trump's authority of the executive branch. No judge ever had that authority to 'curtail'.
FastLane
Verified User
Your reading comprehension sucks. They are talking about blocking nationwide TRO's by Article III judges even if the President isn't involved in the TRO. Article III judges do issue TROs that do have a nationwide reach now. I tend to agree that they do not have authority over Article II functions though.
Into the Night
Contributor
I'm not the one ignoring Article III.
They never had any authority to issue such a ruling. It can be ignored, and the judge should be impeached and removed from office and disbarred.
Article III never gave ANY judge the authority to overrule the Presidents authority over the executive branch. Article III never gave ANY judge to create law.
They also do not have any authority to issue a TRO and never did.
FastLane
Verified User
Sure Article III have issued TROs that had a nationwide effect for lots of different reasons. Again your reading comprehension is lacking.
BTW Federal Rule 65
Isn't that cute the way you lie and then pretend your lies are truth.
It appears you haven't read any of the court rulings since you ask this question. Maybe you should educate yourself before you continue to look like a fool.
The AEA requires that the US be at war with a foreign government to deport people from that country. Which country are we currently at war with? When was that war declared?
The law is quite clear that a President is supposed to spend the money allocated by the legislature. He can't simply not spend it because he doesn't want to. This was decided years ago by the USSC.
The problem is who decided who is a criminal alien. The Constitution does not give the President that power. The 4th, 5th and 14th amendments say no one can be adjudicated a criminal without a trial and the ability to defend themselves.
There you go lying again.
It wasn't a strawman since you are clearly making the argument.No. Why fabricate dumb strawmen? I get it though, this happens when leftist halfwits realize they are losing the argument.
I see you can't cite a single ruling by a court. I wonder why that is.
LOL. You don't even know what the ruling was here. Then you completely ignore that the appeals court ruled upholding the TRO.
The Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked amid a declared war or an “invasion” by a foreign nation.
This was decided by the USSC during George Bush's administration. The President can not refuse to spend money allocated for a specific purpose by Congress.
I see you didn't actually read your link since it gives arguments for both sides.The best argument for the federal courts’ statutory authority to issue (some of the) national injunctions recently granted is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires reviewing courts to “set aside” unlawful agency action. But some of the national injunctions have involved executive orders that are not reviewable under the APA. I know of no plausible statutory authority for federal courts to grant these injunctions.
The best argument against statutory authority to grant national injunctions is that neither the APA nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorize them. National injunctions are inimical to the traditional powers and constraints of equity, and thus under Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. are not within the grant of statutory authority in the Judiciary Act. Nor should the APA be understood as authorizing, much less requiring, national injunctions. When the APA was enacted, national injunctions were not being given by federal courts. The language used — “set aside” — was typical for reversal of judgments, which is consistent with Congress’s expectation that agencies would predominantly make policy through adjudication. And Congress would have needed to speak more clearly in order to depart from long-standing equitable and remedial principles (cf. Nken v. Holder, Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo).
We can have a system that gets to an answer very quickly, erring on the side of expansive remedies. Or we can have a system that emphasizes the individual case and the parties before the court. In this latter system we do get to a decision for everyone — but it takes time, and deliberation, and the decisions of different courts in different parts of the country. It is open for debate which kind of system is better. But the design of the federal judiciary and the judicial power exercised by the federal courts over more than two centuries strongly suggest the latter is the kind of system we have. And in this kind of system, the national injunction is an aberration.
Recent challenges to federal immigration policies are examples of cases in which class certification would have been very difficult, and yet the plaintiff needed a nationwide injunction to obtain complete relief. The state of Texas challenged the Obama administration’s policy of granting deferred action to certain undocumented immigrants, claiming injury because it would be forced to provide recipients of deferred action with state-subsidized driver’s licenses. The Obama administration argued that any injunction of its deferred action initiative should be limited to the state of Texas alone. But the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s nationwide injunction on the ground that anything less would fail to alleviate Texas’ injury, because recipients of deferred action in other states could move to Texas any time and apply for driver’s licenses, causing Texas the same injury. Likewise, when Hawaii challenged President Trump’s travel ban, it argued that restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals anywhere in the United States would impede tourism and harm recruitment of faculty and students to its state university, and so it claimed a nationwide injunction essential to provide it with complete relief. Neither of these states could have easily brought their cases as class actions.
Nonetheless, the costs of nationwide injunctions are real, which is why district courts should carefully weigh the costs against benefits before issuing them.
One for all: Are nationwide injunctions legal?
Critics argue that nationwide injunctions encourage forum-shopping, inhibit the proper development of law, and politicize the judiciary.judicature.duke.edu
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits federal district courts to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions, and places no limit on federal courts’ power to issue injunctions that require defendants to cease taking action against nonparties.
The APA also authorizes nationwide injunctions in cases challenging federal agency action. Under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), courts are required to “hold unlawful and set aside” agency action it finds to be invalid — language that suggests that when a court finds a rule was promulgated in violation of the procedures laid out in the APA, or is contrary to an agency’s governing statute, then the rule can no longer apply to anyone.
Donald Trump is not personally deporting anyone or personally firing people at agencies. The agencies are doing those things and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) requires the court to set aside agency action. You might want to actually read the EOs which tell the agencies to take actions. Presidential EOs can not overturn laws passed by Congress.
Void argument. Paradox.
Washington Examiner.
????
It's not like he cited the Amazon.Com Post...
It's amusing that you Stalinists think attacking legitimate sources has any power now.
The media with zero credibility is your propaganda corps. No one sane believes anything the NY TImes vomits out. ABNBCBS is a joke - NBC is openly controlled by the CCP. CNN is nothing but a DNC mouthpiece.
Trying to slander the Examiner? Are you fucking kidding?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I note that my post on pg 2 of this thread, number 29, has gone unchallenged and unanswered by the Leftists here who are arguing in support of these lowly district judge's rulings that essentially set and establish United States foreign and domestic policy nationwide and around the globe.
I summed it up in three sentences and an example.
Since when did a single lowly federal district court judge get the power to make nationwide and global policy decisions for the United States?
I summed it up in three sentences and an example.
Since when did a single lowly federal district court judge get the power to make nationwide and global policy decisions for the United States?
Judges that rule that laws are unconstitutional are not setting policy or agenda. They are upholding the nation's agenda since the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.
Striking down a law or a rule is not making up a law out of thin air. You are making specious arguments. If you think that is happening provide us with actual cases where that has happened. I wonder if you will be able to do that.
A false argument. The courts ruling is not that their policy must be followed but rather they rule that the illegal action can not be taken.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
That's not what they're doing here. They are making sweeping injunctions and temporary restraining orders with nationwide effect regardless of the parties bringing the case, without regard to the case having class standing, and making those orders without legal citation.
They aren't striking down some law or another, they are simply ruling against Trump and something they don't like that he's doing.
These are the federal judges thwarting Donald Trump
Dozens of federal judges have blocked Trump's executive orders in his first few months in office.
www.newsweek.com
Judges ruling against Trump's orders have history with his cases
Several of the federal judges hearing lawsuits threatening key tenets of President Donald Trump’s agenda have a legal history with the president. The
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Trump is obviously wrong in attacking judges. But he's correct about one thing. | Opinion
More than 15 nationwide injunctions have been issued to Trump's administration. The president is raising valid concern, hidden in outlandish posts.
www.usatoday.com
Appeals court clears way for Trump to fire members of labor and workforce protection boards
President Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
www.cbsnews.com
Wrong. The judge hands down an order or verdict in a case and then expects it to be followed. To claim an action is "illegal" required citation of law. Judges handing down these nationwide edicts, and that's what they are, are not citing law. Instead, they make vague references to Trump's actions being "unconstitutional" or "illegal" without citation. That doesn't cut it as a legal ruling. That's simply a judge that doesn't like what Trump is doing setting foreign and domestic policy on his or her own.
Into the Night
Contributor
Article III doesn't issue anything.
It doesn't authorize any judge to issue any ruling beyond those directly involved in the case.
Federal rule 65 doesn't authorize TROs either.
Any judge exceeding his authority should be impeached and removed from office and disbarred.