RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Trump Is About To Do Something Long Overdue To Combat Judicial Tyranny - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Trump Is About To Do Something Long Overdue To Combat Judicial Tyranny Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,707
  • Joined: 02-October 03

  Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:26 PM

Trump Is About To Do Something Long Overdue To Combat Judicial Tyranny

Bonchie
RedState
5/9/19

EXCERPT:

One of the most concerning aspects of the Trump Presidency has been random judges deciding to dictate policy to the entire country with national injunctions. Even if you dislike the President, the idea that a judge in San Francisco can stop all asylum reforms, for example, based on clearly political reasons should bother you. It’s a complete subversion of how the system was designed to work.

The founders would have laughed at the idea of “judicial supremacy” and called it tyranny. They never intended for low-level judges to be able to dictate national, constitutionally supported policy. Slowly, though, over the course of hundreds of years, we’ve arrived at the point where national injunctions are being routinely abused simply to oppose Trump, while not being based in any sound aspect of law.

Finally, it appears someone is ready to do something about it.

Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump.

The administration’s move — aimed at pushing back at unfavorable decisions from lower courts across the country — would set the stage for a vast legal debate and battle over the role that national injunctions play in the courts.

(Full Story)
0

#2 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,230
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:53 PM

It's damned well time!

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 09 May 2019 - 03:54 PM

0

#3 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,028
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 09 May 2019 - 05:18 PM

The part where lawyers would not allow "Jane Roe" to testify for fear that she would be caught for perjury?
0

#4 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 21,875
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 09 May 2019 - 06:34 PM

Mixed opinions here.

IN GENERAL, I ABHOR the concept that a Federal Judge within a state is essentially unaccountable to the citizens/voter of that state.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I dunno. Maybe, sometimes, the voters of a particular state NEED to be smacked down by an independent federalé. New York, Illinois, and California come to mind.

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 09 May 2019 - 06:36 PM

0

#5 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,028
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 09 May 2019 - 06:38 PM

Except not having to set up mule and spoof accounts? My point is that Roe v. Wade is based on a false narrative and a witness whose testimony would have discredited the plaintiffs' argument under scrutiny.

The Supreme Court ruled that 0bamacare is a tax. Chief Justice confirmed that in his written decision. PRESIDENT Donald J. Trump signed into law a Congressional bill that eliminated the tax (fine). A federal judge concurred with the SCOTUS that the individual mandate was a tax and that the new tax law nullified the individual mandate.
0

#6 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: 100+ Posts NonDonor
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 09 May 2019 - 09:45 PM

This is really that mouthy, effeminate, turncoat liberal Roberts job to rein in the court. But no, Mr. fantasy does not think there are liberal and conservative judges with a political agenda. Once again Trump is carrying the burden. God bless Donald Trump.
0

#7 User is online   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,365
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 09 May 2019 - 10:11 PM

A good discussion of national injunctions can be found here: https://www.lawfareb...-who-president.

There’s a strong case against them, and the article offers a well-reasoned argument. The main points against federal judges having the ability to issue national injunctions are:
- they lead to forum-shopping
- the judge’s order (against executive action) affects the whole nation, but if an individual (or group) were to sue against the judge’s order, they can only do so on their behalf. The asymmetry is staggering.
- national injunctions stop the process of other cases around the country. The legal system depends on multiple courts hearing similar cases and having multiple arguments. If it ends up in the SC, these cases are critical to have as background, but national injunctions stop the process
- federal courts are supposed to decide individual cases, not abstract questions for all possible parties.

Of course, leftists don’t like the rule of law in a democracy. They want dictatorial, fascist power.
0

#8 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,988
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 10 May 2019 - 07:27 AM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 09 May 2019 - 06:34 PM, said:

Mixed opinions here.

IN GENERAL, I ABHOR the concept that a Federal Judge within a state is essentially unaccountable to the citizens/voter of that state.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I dunno. Maybe, sometimes, the voters of a particular state NEED to be smacked down by an independent federalé. New York, Illinois, and California come to mind.


You don't need a nation wide injunction for that the circuit that is responsible for the state can do so, which is why we actually have circuit courts with responsibilities over regions, they were never intended to be baby supreme courts.
0

#9 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 36,819
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 10 May 2019 - 07:42 AM

Quote

This shouldn't be a partisan issue.


Quote

You can think Trump is the worst President in history, but no one with any care for constitutional governance should be supportive of what some of these lower court judges are doing.


These two statements are mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as a lefty/proggy/democrat who believes in Constitutional governance.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users