SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:15 PM

Always in His Presence said:
Said no one in this administration ever.

What's stopping a future administration from doing it? And you can't say "the Constitution", given that the same Constitution also guarantees Due Process to everyone. I want a meaningful and articulated reason why, since courts cannot make nation wide injunctions against executive orders, then what is to stop President Woke Leftist McGee in 2028 from taking guns away from American people through an executive order?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:18 PM

rjs330 said:
You are missing the authority part. Up until now the courts ruled with impunity and nationwide authority, no matter where they were. And just because they did it in the past, obviously does not mean that they should continue to do it. Thats how the Supreme Court works. They look at everything that has been done and is being done and determines if it has been done correctly. They looked at it this situation brought before them.and determined that courts did not have the authority to do what they were doing.

Checks and balances are based on authority. Who has the authority and what authority do they actually have constitutionally.

Yes rhe president does have authority over the executive branch. That is constitutional. And his actions affect the entire nation because he is a national authority and its granted to him by the constitution. However the courts in Washington have not been given authority over all the united states and all governemnt actions. They may look at a particular case in front of them and rule on that.

The check happens when plaintiffs file a class action suit from all over the US. And it finally makes its way to SCOTUS.

How I personally feel about who's in power is irrelevant. Sure, Id be happy with rulings in my favor. Just as you are. But my happiness is irrelevant. In the future if we decide to sue the Executive then I expect a class action suit. Because a judge in Texas should be able to tell the president they cant run the executive how he wants to. If enough people believe they have been harmed by this then they can file a class action suit.

So if a future president signs an executive order to take away your guns, the lower courts cannot stop him. And it will have to go all the way to the higher courts then. In the meantime the president sends in federal agents to confiscate your guns.

And this is a good thing, you say.

-CryptoLutheran

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:21 PM

ViaCrucis said:
So if a future president signs an executive order to take away your guns, the lower courts cannot stop him. And it will have to go all the way to the higher courts then. In the meantime the president sends in federal agents to confiscate your guns.

And this is a good thing, you say.

-CryptoLutheran

Congress would get involved. Well, at least the republicans would. Dems are off the rails.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:25 PM

ralliann said:
Congress would get involved.

And if the majority elected to both the Senate and House are pro-President Woke Leftist McGee and they do nothing. What then?

-CryptoLutheran

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:25 PM

Always in His Presence said:
They agreed with the legal argument of the executive branch. That is checks and balances in action. Other times as demonstrated they ruled against the executive branches. That is checks and balances also

No. The High court has not limited lower courts power. The lower courts went outside the power they had and the high court corrected them

Checks and balances.

Said no one in this administration ever.

I hope they bring civics back to the schools....Kids need to learn this stuff in School once again..

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:26 PM

ViaCrucis said:
And if the majority elected to both the Senate and House are pro-President Woke Leftist McGee and they do nothing. What then?

-CryptoLutheran

That is why all those illegals came across our border. Dems didn't care to enforce border law..
So yes, it can cause a mess to clean up... The people seen it and responded and they lost the election.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:28 PM

ralliann said:
That is why all those illegals came across our border. Dems didn't care to enforce border law..

That's a deflection, not an answer.

The president just signed an executive order that will take your guns away. Federal agents are sent in to break down your door and take your guns. Congress isn't doing anything about it. And now we wait until the higher courts hear about this before anything can be done. All the while, your Constitutional rights are being violated.

What makes my scenario impossible?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:33 PM

ralliann said:
Congress would get involved. Well, at least the republicans would. Dems are off the rails.

Your edit here is telling.

I've been very precise in maintaining partisan neutrality in this thread, avoiding "our side rules, their side is bad" language. This is about an objective, non-partisan approach to government.

I would ask that you at least attempt the same.

-CryptoLutheran

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:35 PM

ralliann said:
That is why all those illegals came across our border. Dems didn't care to enforce border law..

ViaCrucis said:
That's a deflection, not an answer.

It is exactly what happened. The summer of love remember that? Legalizing theft? We all watched this crap. We watched it with Ice in LA.

ViaCrucis said:
The president just signed an executive order that will take your guns away. Federal agents are sent in to break down your door and take your guns.

Nobody is going to allow someone to break down your door. Well unless it is dems. They somewhat did that with the INSURRECTIONISTS, hunting them down for walking around the capitol bldg.

ViaCrucis said:
Congress isn't doing anything about it. And now we wait until the higher courts hear about this before anything can be done. All the while, your Constitutional rights are being violated.

What makes my scenario impossible?

-CryptoLutheran

It happened with the dems....

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:35 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Your edit here is telling.

I've been very precise in maintaining partisan neutrality in this thread, avoiding "our side rules, their side is bad" language. This is about an objective, non-partisan approach to government.

I would ask that you at least attempt the same.

-CryptoLutheran

It is the truth see my next entry.

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:37 PM

ralliann said:
It is exactly what happened. The summer of love remember that? Legalizing theft? We all watched this crap. We watched it with Ice in LA.

Nobody is going to allow someone to break down your door. Well unless it is dems. They somewhat did that with the INSURRECTIONISTS, hunting them down for walking around the capitol bldg.

It happened with the dems....

Do you want to answer the question or no?

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Tuesday at 7:37 PM

ralliann said:
It is the truth see my next entry.

Alright, I tried. You don't want to have a serious discussion about this. Fine. Have a good day.

-CryptoLutheran

ralliann · Tuesday at 7:48 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Alright, I tried. You don't want to have a serious discussion about this. Fine. Have a good day.

-CryptoLutheran

I gave you my answer. You just do not like it. I said congress would get involved. If congress does not make that law ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, it would be illegal. You seen a fine example in the Biden years of Congress allowing and supporting lawbreaking. That is what you seen was lawbreaking, not the power of a president run amok. Can you recognize the difference?

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 7:49 PM

ViaCrucis said:
What's stopping a future administration from doing it? And you can't say "the Constitution", given that the same Constitution also guarantees Due Process to everyone. I want a meaningful and articulated reason why, since courts cannot make nation wide injunctions against executive orders, then what is to stop President Woke Leftist McGee in 2028 from taking guns away from American people through an executive order?

-CryptoLutheran

What people aren’t seeing or perhaps don’t want to see is the definitely for sure happening because they’ve already done this once before behind the scenes efforts to make sure Leftist McGee never wins a national election in the US again.

That’s my theory.

GoldenBoy89 · Tuesday at 7:50 PM

ViaCrucis said:
So if a future president signs an executive order to take away your guns, the lower courts cannot stop him. And it will have to go all the way to the higher courts then. In the meantime the president sends in federal agents to confiscate your guns.

And this is a good thing, you say.

-CryptoLutheran

Masked federal agents in normal cars, mind you.

And you can’t alert your neighbors with your phone or you’re inciting violence on an officer.

rjs330 · Tuesday at 8:32 PM

ViaCrucis said:
So if a future president signs an executive order to take away your guns, the lower courts cannot stop him. And it will have to go all the way to the higher courts then. In the meantime the president sends in federal agents to confiscate your guns.

And this is a good thing, you say.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly. If file a singular suit a souls court can tell the government they may not come and get my guns. If me and all muh gun totin' buddies file a cladding action suit and a judge rules on our behalf then the government cant take any of our guns. Until the Supreme Court issues a constitutional decision.

rjs330 · Tuesday at 8:34 PM

ralliann said:
I gave you my answer. You just do not like it. I said congress would get involved. If congress does not make that law ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, it would be illegal. You seen a fine example in the Biden years of Congress allowing and supporting lawbreaking. That is what you seen was lawbreaking, not the power of a president run amok. Can you recognize the difference?

I dont know why the left continues to argue about this. SCOTUS has decided. Isn't that what they kept telling us about abortion? How dare we argue about it. It wad decided, it was precedence. It was a done deal.

Well back at cha. Which also means SCOTUS can change its mind later. In like 40 years.

ralliann · Tuesday at 9:53 PM

rjs330 said:
I dont know why the left continues to argue about this. SCOTUS has decided. Isn't that what they kept telling us about abortion? How dare we argue about it. It wad decided, it was precedence. It was a done deal.

Well back at cha. Which also means SCOTUS can change its mind later. In like 40 years.

I remember when abortion became legal. The libs for quite some time tried to get it "BY THE PEOPLE" through the democratic election process of the American system of the vote. They couldn't get it by the vote. So, they "BY PASSED WE THE PEOPLE" and took it to unelected Judges, to the supreme court to make it law. Since that time, that has increased, activist judges began to "MAKE LAW" from the bench, instead of adjudicating the law. And it began terrible fights concerning the appointment of justices to the Supreme court. It was the right call to overturn that decision. Now it is back to where it should be, with the people and back to the states. Now look how far it has gone. Judges attempting to take on the power of the presidency altogether. These judges need to be put back in their own lane. They are unelected, and only represent their own ideas, not ours as a people.

A2SG · 2025-07-02T00:00:32-0500

Always in His Presence said:
No - it is not better, because it is not true - the courts have ruled against Trump a number of times - There no dictatorship forming except in some fertile imaginations

️ Major Supreme Court Losses for Trump

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
In 2020, the Court ruled 5–4 that the Trump administration’s attempt to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. This was a major setback for Trump’s immigration agenda.

Census Citizenship Question
Also in 2019, the Court blocked the administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, citing that the rationale provided was contrived and not credible.

Trump v. Vance (2020)
The Court ruled 7–2 that the President is not immune from a state criminal subpoena, allowing the Manhattan District Attorney to obtain Trump’s tax records.

Trump v. Mazars (2020)
In a related case, the Court sent congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records back to lower courts for further review, rejecting Trump’s blanket immunity claims.

As I said, sometimes, enough of the other justices side with Trump, occasionally they don't.

But I still maintain that certain SCOTUS justices seem more than willing to aid Trump's attempts to wield dictator-like powers.

-- A2SG, you are, of course, free to disagree.....

ralliann · 2025-07-02T10:16:24-0500

A2SG said:
As I said, sometimes, enough of the other justices side with Trump, occasionally they don't.

But I still maintain that certain SCOTUS justices seem more than willing to aid Trump's attempts to wield dictator-like powers.

-- A2SG, you are, of course, free to disagree.....

So you think Judges should? That is really what you are arguing for. The Supreme court simply put it "back" where it belonged. Not what one has the power to do, but who has the power to do it.

SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

christian

Confessional Lutheran

christian

christian

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

christian

christian

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

christian

We're Still Here

We're Still Here

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

christian

Gumby

christian

Similar threads