- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Simple solution to judicial overreach and nationwide injunctions
Posted on 2/11/25 at 5:59 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 5:59 am
Congress should pass law giving SCOTUS sole, original jurisdiction over any litigation that seeks to enjoin the actions of the President or Cabinet Members.
16
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:06 am to udtiger
Would need a constitutional ammendment
Separation of powers. Same reason judicial can’t overstep executive. Legislative can’t overstep judicial.
Separation of powers. Same reason judicial can’t overstep executive. Legislative can’t overstep judicial.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 6:07 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:09 am to udtiger
not bad
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:10 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Would need a constitutional ammendment
Separation of powers. Same reason judicial can’t overstep executive. Legislative can’t overstep judicial.
You sure about that? A simple Google search...
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:12 am to udtiger
They're not a trial court, though. That's going to be a major issue. They also don't move quickly often.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:13 am to MMauler
I stand corrected. Did not know that.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:16 am to tigeraddict
quote:
I stand corrected. Did not know that
I didn’t think they would need a constitutional amendment, However, I wasn’t sure myself. Hence the Google search. I knew that the lower court system was created by the Judiciary Act and was not provided for in the Constitution, But I didn’t realize it was the judiciary act that set the jurisdiction. I thought it might’ve been the Supreme Court itself after the lower court system was created.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:17 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Would need a constitutional ammendment
No. It would not.
Congress is vested with the authority to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.
There are certain powers/jurisdiction the Congress cannot take away (that are in the Constitution), but they absolutely can add to them.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:22 am to udtiger
Yeah, don’t expect the Democrats in Congress to go along with this.
There was a reason why Odumbf*ck got Dingy Harry to execute the nuclear option to pack the DC circuit with the most far left f*cking whackjobs this country has ever seen. These are the exact kind of cases that mostly go through the DC circuit.
There is no f*cking way the Democrats in Congress are going to allow these cases to go straight to the Supreme Court so that they can’t forum shop for friendly/politicized scumbag judges to issue insane fricking nationwide restraining orders stopping anything a republican president puts forward. The whole point is to delay, delay, delay for years while these fraudulent cases and restraining orders make there way up to the Supreme Court.
There was a reason why Odumbf*ck got Dingy Harry to execute the nuclear option to pack the DC circuit with the most far left f*cking whackjobs this country has ever seen. These are the exact kind of cases that mostly go through the DC circuit.
There is no f*cking way the Democrats in Congress are going to allow these cases to go straight to the Supreme Court so that they can’t forum shop for friendly/politicized scumbag judges to issue insane fricking nationwide restraining orders stopping anything a republican president puts forward. The whole point is to delay, delay, delay for years while these fraudulent cases and restraining orders make there way up to the Supreme Court.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 8:19 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:23 am to tigeraddict
quote:
Would need a constitutional ammendment
Negative. Congress has near total control over the lower courts.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're not a trial court, though
Article III, Section 2 (emphasis added)
quote:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 6:27 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:26 am to udtiger
Also, bear in mind this would be limited to those instances where injunctive relief/TRO is sought. Plaintiffs would decide jurisdiction by the relief sought.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:31 am to tigeraddict
Edit: Leaving my apparently less-than-educated opinion up simply for gee-whiz educational purposes regarding Conventions of the States. 
Thanks udtiger for the classroom lesson!
____________________________________
Great premise, wrong execution.
Correct execution. That said, an Amendment would require a Convention of the States.
Depending on what site you take the info from, there are 28 out of the 34 states required to call a CotS that have passed legislation through both their houses of State Congress.
One site has it listed that 19 states have passed this legislation while 16 others have active legislation on their legislative dockets. That would put the total at 35 if all of them passed both state chambers.
I think that we may get a CotS before the end of Trump’s presidency if DOGE keeps tearing down both foreign and domestic financial walls and grifts. Especially if we start seeing arrests of people like Congressional leaders, sitting governors, and current and former agency heads at the state and federal level, respectively.
Thanks udtiger for the classroom lesson!
____________________________________
quote:
udtiger
Great premise, wrong execution.
quote:
tigeraddict
quote:
Would need a constitutional ammendment
Correct execution. That said, an Amendment would require a Convention of the States.
Depending on what site you take the info from, there are 28 out of the 34 states required to call a CotS that have passed legislation through both their houses of State Congress.
One site has it listed that 19 states have passed this legislation while 16 others have active legislation on their legislative dockets. That would put the total at 35 if all of them passed both state chambers.
I think that we may get a CotS before the end of Trump’s presidency if DOGE keeps tearing down both foreign and domestic financial walls and grifts. Especially if we start seeing arrests of people like Congressional leaders, sitting governors, and current and former agency heads at the state and federal level, respectively.
This post was edited on 2/11/25 at 6:42 am
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:32 am to udtiger
I’m not an attorney, but it seems like district court should be barred from making decisions that affect activity outside of their district. To have national ruling all districts need to agree or it needs to be referred to SCOTUS before taking affect.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:35 am to DByrd2
quote:
think that we may get a CotS
I may be in the minority here but this is a terrible idea IMO and will open Pardoras box. Given the corruption we’ve seen thus far do we trust any of these politicians with the chance to amend the Constitution?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:37 am to SquatchDawg
Or maybe they need to be an approving office in a routing chain through the Circuits to SCOTUS’ desk, and upon decision to hear by SCOTUS, prioritized in the docket regardless of other court dates which will be rescheduled.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:37 am to udtiger
Congress needs to get off its arse and work
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:41 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
I may be in the minority here but this is a terrible idea IMO and will open Pardoras box. Given the corruption we’ve seen thus far do we trust any of these politicians with the chance to amend the Constitution
I think the same CURRENTLY, but in a couple 2-3 years I think we may see convictions and sentencing that cause special elections, rooting out the filth.
Once the filth is removed, the CotS becomes viable again. If we can manage to get a Vance presidency following this term for Trump, it may have to happen in his tenure if 4 years is too short a time span.
Something tells me that when facts and evidence are put into these court filings, it will be undeniable and the trials will move swiftly.
It will also be public record judging by how Elon and Trump are being so damn transparent about the findings so far on X and in interviews.
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:41 am to udtiger
quote:
Article III, Section 2 (emphasis added)
I didn't reference potential constitutional issues
Can their courtroom even take live testimony?
Posted on 2/11/25 at 6:42 am to udtiger
quote:
Congress should pass law giving SCOTUS sole, original jurisdiction over any litigation that seeks to enjoin the actions of the President or Cabinet Members.
So the court that already only hears like 80 cases out of like 10k a year to be even more overloaded?
Page 1 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News