- 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
0
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:49 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
What power do you disagree with though? Is it that the judge can't grant an injunction against participants in his court at all or that those injunctions against folks represented in the court aren't nation wide?
Just trying to understand with clarity what you see as the problem
Judges have filed injunctions against plantiffs in their court pretty often.
Let me try to explain with a question -
Do you believe that it was the intent of congress when they established the district courts and passed law(s) related to their remit/power that the opposing party (to whoever is in office) could put before a "sympathetic" court an action that would allow said judge to handcuff a president on a policy matter for years?
By sympathetic, I mean politically bent/biased.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:49 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:Let's say (just for shits and giggles) that this is true.quote:Judge A in District A has no authority outside of District A.
because Judge A has no authority to tell Mega what to do ... anywhere outside District A.
Does he have authority over a LITIGANT who is present in his court? Yes or no?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:49 pm to David_DJS
quote:
No rational read of my posts would lead you to this.
So your position is that the president is the only beholden to the supreme court? What's that based on?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And THIS is totally unworkable.
More unworkable than 600+ people being willing and able to throw their political sand in the gears any time they feel like it, imposing their will on the entire country with no consequences? Nah.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:50 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Or are you arguing that when in the judicial system the president has special powers that make him specifically immune from injunctions on his admins actions?
The only court that can impose a nationwide injunction is the Supreme Court. Outside of that a district court can only do so in their district, a circuit court in their circuit. The idea that a single judge in a district court has the same power as the President is insane and I say that as a strong opponent of the unitary executive theory.
This post was edited on 3/27/25 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:51 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
As SFP has said repeatedly, the upper courts are not DESIGNED to hear this sort of thing as a matter of first impression. They are designed to review alleged legal error by the District Courts.
Which is exactly why I posted that the president should ignore these jokers and let the matter find its way to the supreme court.
quote:
Further, your proposal would allow a rogue Executive (or ANY party) to engage in blatantly illegal activities for years, until a challenge makes its way to SCOTUS ... doing "irreparable harm" to thousands of millions of people in the interim.
And the current system allows a rogue judge to do the same. Know what the difference is, Hank?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:52 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
So your position is that the president is the only beholden to the supreme court? What's that based on?
My position is better stated this way - no district court judge has the power to push pause on a presidency for 2-3 years.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:52 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:PLEASE say that you did not attend an accredited law school.
The only court that can impose a nationwide injunction is the Supreme Court. Outside of that a district court can only do so in their district, a circuit court in their circuit.
If you did, you should get your money back, and the school should lose its accreditation.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:54 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
PLEASE say that you did not attend an accredited law school.
I have never said I’m a lawyer but at least one Supreme Court Justice agrees with me and has very much signaled he wants to stop this nonsense.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:55 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
The only court that can impose a nationwide injunction is the Supreme Court.
That doesn't sound right at all.
quote:
The idea that a single judge in a district court has the same power as the President is insane
These aren't the same power. The president is using his power of executive orders. The judge is reviewing a case where plantiffs sued saying that power was improperly used. The judge then accepted the request for injunction to prevent harm by the actions of the defedent until the hearing could proceed.
The judge in this case is acting as a check on presidential power. Which is a pretty typical responsibility of the federal district courts.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:57 pm to David_DJS
quote:
- no district court judge has the power to push pause on a presidency for 2-3 years.
So in what are you basing the presidents power to ignore federal courts on? Who gave it to him?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 8:59 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
That doesn't sound right at all.
Under current precedent it’s not but that is how, in my, and at least Clarence Thomas’, mind it should work.
quote:
The judge in this case is acting as a check on presidential power. Which is a pretty typical responsibility of the federal district courts.
Sure, I don’t disagree but a judges authority should not extend beyond their judicial authority. Last time I checked a district judge doesn’t have authority outside of their district other than in regards to executive actions. Seems wrong to me.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:00 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
So in what are you basing the presidents power to ignore federal courts on? Who gave it to him?
Answer my question, please - do you believe that it was the intent of congress when they established the district courts and passed law(s) related to their remit/power that the opposing party (to whoever is in office) could put before a "sympathetic" court an action that would allow said judge to handcuff a president on a policy matter for years?
And I'll add a second question - what's the protection against a rogue district court judge neutralizing legitimate executive action?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:01 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Still waiting.
because Judge A has no authority to tell Mega what to do ... anywhere outside District A.quote:Let's say (just for shits and giggles) that this is true.
Judge A in District A has no authority outside of District A.
Does he have authority over a LITIGANT who is present in his court? Yes or no?
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:01 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Under current precedent it’s not but that is how, in my, and at least Clarence Thomas’, mind it should work
Thomas and Kagan. Kagan made the same argument a few years ago.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:01 pm to David_DJS
quote:
And I'll add a second question - what's the protection against a rogue district court judge neutralizing legitimate executive action?
They will say impeachment but historically that has not, and will not, ever happen.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:02 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:This is not REMOTELY true.
Last time I checked a district judge doesn’t have authority outside of their district other than in regards to executive actions.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:03 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
They will say impeachment but historically that has not, and will not, ever happen.
And even if it did, that's not enough. A politically motivated judge essentially neutralizing an election should be locked the frick up.
Posted on 3/27/25 at 9:03 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Does he have authority over a LITIGANT who is present in his court? Yes or no?
Yes, over actions that occur in his area of judicial authority.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News