Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seems to me that this decision improved the checks and balances, district judges shouldn't be able to single-handedly shut down orders nationwide. The judiciary still serves as a check on the executive, all the decision does is remove a fairly novel instrument that could have easily been abused.
Even when those actions are unconstitutional? And, let's not forget, district courts are subject to appeal to a higher court, so their decisions can always be overruled.
And facilitated an executive branch to overreach its authority and issue unconstitutional orders.
Denying district courts universal injunction power doesn't prevent them from ruling actions unconstitutional and getting the ball rolling, it simply doesn't grant rogue judges the power to single handedly overrule the executive.
This decision doesn't facilitate the executive branch overreaching its authority, it curbs overreaches by district judges and requires a broader consensus of judicial opinion to hinder the operation of the executive.
Who is being unconstitutional here. These Judges are.
So.
Barrett went on to describe the dissent as "more extreme still," and said that Jackson's opinion "is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself."
"Rogue" judge meaning, of course, one you disagree with. If their rulings are contrary to the law or the Constitution, their decisions can be appealed and, if found to be so, overturned.
It did in several cases involving Trump. Such as denying due process in several cases.
A system for that is already in place: the appeals process.
Nope. The Supreme Court ruling limited nationwide injunctions, but it did not find them to be unconstitutional.
So the powers of district judges are limited, and subject to appeal.
Gee, a couple of Supreme Court justices disagree. Alert the media!
Because Trump wants his power, and there are enough SCOTUS justices who are more than willing to hand it to him.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when a district court rules that a future Democrat in office oversteps his authority. I wonder how many proponents of this decision will be as supportive then.
Nope, "rogue" judge as in one that has been docket shopped. And as the Supreme Court ruled, the universal injuntion power to suppress EOs was a constintutional violation. So why are you complaining about the judicial system doing exactly what you here make an appeal to?
It's rather ironic you speak of the appeals process where the court system has done exactly what you affirm it has the power to in overruling lower court judges by stripping them of powers that they in effect granted themselves that put inordinate power into the hands of district court judges. You complain about the executive overstepping, but you're quite happy with district court judges taking such things upon themselves and pretending that the supreme court has somehow done something wrong by ruling that such power violates the constitution. The judiciary still has the oversight function, but that function requires proper procedures to be followed.
A common practice used by all flavors of political thought.
I'm not so much complaining as disagreeing. I fully acknowledge the Supreme Court's authority in this area, but that doesn't mean I'm not free to disagree regardless.
In other words, the appeals process works.
Nationwide injunctions have been an option for judges for a while now, there was no ruling against them prior to this one, so issuing them was not an overreach. Denying due process, for example, and shipping people to foreign prisons was never within the authority of the executive branch.
Hampering their ability to be a bulwark against an executive branch bent on wielding authoritarian powers beyond their authority. Seems to me we need that more now than ever.
Again, you're complaining about executive overreach and your solution to that is to allow for a single district court judge to single handedly decide for the whole nation, and you dismissed the reality of docket shopping as something that is a regular feature and not a serious problem(and contributing factor). It seems to me that your objection is more driven by your personal opinions about the current executive than an honest evaluation of the power dynamic. The judiciary has not been stripped of its oversite functions, district court judges have simply been stripped of the ability to exert undue influence through injunctions and instead the judiciary now requires more comprehensive agreement before such power can be exercised nationwide.
The opinions of Justice Barrett notwithstanding, the ruling did not find nationwide injunctions to be unconstitutional.
Even if these particular judges may not, others might. Judges, like everyone else, have political opinions.
If the action is unconstitutional, absolutely. And if the ruling of that single judge is incorrect, it can be appealed and, if found to be so, overturned.
If you feel it's a serious problem, then feel free to work with the legislature to enact legislation preventing it.
While I will grant you I do not trust Donald Trump as far as I can throw him, I wouldn't want the power he seems intent on wielding to be used by anyone, even a president whose politics I agree with.
Yup, their ability to be a bulwark against a dictatorial executive branch has been curtailed, at the time we need it more than ever.
Nothing about this ruling stops judges from making rulings about the constitutionality of executive actions, it simply prevents a single district judge from having an undue influence over the entire system. Judicial overreach is no less of a significant issue than executive overreach.
Curbing the power of district judges reduces the overall threat that such practices present
While I find the expansion of executive powers that has happened over the last 40 years troubling, it's not as if Trump initiated the problem. But that doesn't justify granting undue influence to single judges that can be selectively picked by anyone with an axe to grind, so it's neither here nor there on this particular ruling.
You're simply being dramatic, judges can still make rulings about constitutionality and the judiciary as a whole remains in its oversite capacity. It simply requires a more comprehensive contingent of judges to operate at a national level, not allowing for rogue judges to wield undue influence over the political process.
Judicial overreach has an appeals process, executive branch does not. The only way to limit overreach from the executive branch is through the courts.
Which is far, far less of a threat to democracy than executive branch overreach. Especially since the court's power is limited through the appeals process.
True enough. But he has exacerbated it, and shows no sign of stopping. Given his past criminal acts, it seems to me we need a stronger bulwark against his overreach than a weaker one.
That ability has been in place for decades, it wasn't recently granted. It only came under fire when a president, intent on overstepping his authority, felt inhibited in doing so.
I don't believe I am being dramatic. Trump does seem inordinately interested in wielding powers well beyond his authority, and I firmly believe our democracy needs more protection against that than less.
