Trump’s Mega MAGA. Month transforms America

[Vambram]

Did the deported persons get their due process? (It doesn't look like it and the WH seems to be rejecting the notion that the court and the deported persons lawyers have the right to know.)

Was the use of the ARA legal for gang members? It doesn't seem so. In which case, the President and his underlings are violating, not enforcing, the law. If they really do want to enforce the law, they have to do so by proper legal procedures authorized by law.

I absolutely disagree with this post.

 

[Bradskii]

He knows far more about how the American court system works and how it is supposed to work than anyone on these forums.

Then how come he didn't know that a district court could have jurisdiction over the president. I linked to the information that showed he was wrong. Maybe he knows a lot about the court system apart from that.

 

[Pommer]

I absolutely disagree with this post.

What a scintillating argument!

 

[Vambram]

Then how come he didn't know that a district court could have jurisdiction over the president. I linked to the information that showed he was wrong. Maybe he knows a lot about the court system apart from that.

Mark Levin did not say that a district court "could have" jurisdiction over the POTUS. What he did say is that when a district court does this, then it is going against (and I'm paraphrasing) what the writers of the US Constitution actually wrote. Also, let us ask this question.
SHOULD a district court judge make a ruling, apply that ruling nationally, and override the POTUS who is the highest elected official in the Executive branch of the Federal government?

Or SHOULD the only Federal Court able to override any POTUS be the SCOTUS??

 

[Bradskii]

Mark Levin did not say that a district court "could have" jurisdiction over the POTUS. What he did say is that when a district court does this, then it is going against (and I'm paraphrasing) what the writers of the US Constitution actually wrote. Also, let us ask this question.
SHOULD a district court judge make a ruling, apply that ruling nationally, and override the POTUS who is the highest elected official in the Executive branch of the Federal government?

Or SHOULD the only Federal Court able to override any POTUS be the SCOTUS??

Whether it should or shouldn't is not relevant to the current discussion. Levin didn't say that the district court shouldn't have jurisdiction. He said they didn't have jurisdiction. He was wrong, as I showed you.

 

[SimplyMe]

Mark Levin did not say that a district court "could have" jurisdiction over the POTUS. What he did say is that when a district court does this, then it is going against (and I'm paraphrasing) what the writers of the US Constitution actually wrote. Also, let us ask this question.
SHOULD a district court judge make a ruling, apply that ruling nationally, and override the POTUS who is the highest elected official in the Executive branch of the Federal government?

Or SHOULD the only Federal Court able to override any POTUS be the SCOTUS??

Any Federal Court should be able to do it. This is the reason that an appeal is always available, until the ruling by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had not wanted it this way, then they would have had cases involving the President to go directly to the Supreme Court (much like claims between states).

Odd that Republicans never argued this point when district court judges blocked Biden's Executive Orders, stating that it should wait until it was heard by the Supreme Court..

 

[Hans Blaster]

I absolutely disagree with this post.

Why should I care about your disagreement. You've not offered any counters or evidence in it.

 

[Vambram]

Whether it should or shouldn't is not relevant to the current discussion. Levin didn't say that the district court shouldn't have jurisdiction. He said they didn't have jurisdiction. He was wrong, as I showed you.

Any Federal Court should be able to do it. This is the reason that an appeal is always available, until the ruling by the Supreme Court. If the Framers had not wanted it this way, then they would have had cases involving the President to go directly to the Supreme Court (much like claims between states).

Odd that Republicans never argued this point when district court judges blocked Biden's Executive Orders, stating that it should wait until it was heard by the Supreme Court..

Well, apparently, some believe that the most powerful branch of the Federal government ought to be the only branch that is NOT elected by the people. Or, do y'all have a different interpretation here?

 

[Vambram]

Why should I care about your disagreement. You've not offered any counters or evidence in it.

I have in previous posts.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, apparently, some believe that the most powerful branch of the Federal government ought to be the only branch that is NOT elected by the people. Or, do y'all have a different interpretation here?

If you're talking about the judiciary, they have no power to do anything themselves. All they can do is disallow others to do what is illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't there as a power unto themsleves. They are there as part of the checks and balances that your founders deemed necessary to prevent, for example, the head of the executive assuming king-like powers. To prevent your republic from becoming a dictatorship.

Frustrated that they often make decisions with which you disagree? Well, join the club. It's one of the joys of a democracy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I absolutely disagree with this post.

Double reply. Ignore.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have in previous posts.

I tracked back the chain of replies. No answers to my queries were stated.

 

[Pommer]

IMO, the authority of chief executive officer of the USA, the Commander in Chief, and the POTUS should not be overridden by a federal district court Judge. IMO, that ability to override the POTUS should only come from Supreme Court judges

Well how nice that SCOTUS has just this month had this “district justices shouldn’t…” do their jobs and issue orders to the President, when the President issues orders that do not comport with the Constitution of the United States of America, issue come before it. I’ll go get a link for that, shall I?

So the “issue” was that the District Court issued a temporary restraining order (making the government honor its USAID commitments, while he considered whether to make the injunction permanent).
Somehow the Government didn’t get the memo and still wasn’t paying on its obligations, so the judge ordered that the government pay all that was due under the contracts, immediately. Government asked for SCOTUS review, which said, in effect, that if the district Judge writes a tight injunction the Court would (probably) back him up.

 

[SimplyMe]

Well, apparently, some believe that the most powerful branch of the Federal government ought to be the only branch that is NOT elected by the people. Or, do y'all have a different interpretation here?

No, just an equal branch of government, as the Constitution calls for. It would be nice if Congress stood up and made themselves an equal branch of government, too.

Again, there is a bit of irony how many here applauded when Republicans went "judge shopping" to stop things done by Biden or Obama, and District Court judges blocked the administration's actions. Yet, suddenly, they are against the thing they were cheering only about a year ago.

 

[Vambram]

No, just an equal branch of government, as the Constitution calls for. It would be nice if Congress stood up and made themselves an equal branch of government, too.

Again, there is a bit of irony how many here applauded when Republicans went "judge shopping" to stop things done by Biden or Obama, and District Court judges blocked the administration's actions. Yet, suddenly, they are against the thing they were cheering only about a year ago.

There has been more judge shopping and more federal district courts going against the will of the people as invested in the POTUS during these last couple of months than there were in a similar time period of the Biden administration. Also, when federal district courts and judges are overriding the will of any POTUS or any Congress, then that means that a DISTRICT court has more authority than does the executive branch and the legislative branch of the federal government.

 

[Vambram]

I tracked back the chain of replies. No answers to my queries were stated.

I have in previous posts in previous threads. Perhaps I didn't answer your queries personally, but I have addressed those questions.

 

[Vambram]

If you're talking about the judiciary, they have no power to do anything themselves. All they can do is disallow others to do what is illegal or unconstitutional. They aren't there as a power unto themsleves. They are there as part of the checks and balances that your founders deemed necessary to prevent, for example, the head of the executive assuming king-like powers. To prevent your republic from becoming a dictatorship.

Frustrated that they often make decisions with which you disagree? Well, join the club. It's one of the joys of a democracy.

But what a liberal judge believes is unconstitutional is going to be different than what a conservative judge believes is constitutional. The judges are unelected and therefore really cannot represent the will of We the People. That is the problem that we in America are facing when judges weigh in on politics.

 

[Bradskii]

But what a liberal judge believes is unconstitutional is going to be different than what a conservative judge believes is constitutional. The judges are unelected and therefore really cannot represent the will of We the People. That is the problem that we in America are facing when judges weigh in on politics.

So you'd prefer it if they were elected like members of Congress? Maybe you think that that will not result in any political bias. Are you actually being serious?

 

[Vambram]

So you'd prefer it if they were elected like members of Congress? Maybe you think that that will not result in any political bias. Are you actually being serious?

What should NOT be happening is district court judges making nationwide injunctions. That ought to only be happening at the Supreme Court level.

 

[Vambram]

Do universal injunctions lead to national rule by one judge? - Harvard Law School

At the Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum, legal experts debated the history and desirability of the universal — otherwise known as nationwide — injunction.

hls.harvard.edu

This article from Harvard gives an interesting debate here.