re: Simple solution to judicial overreach and nationwide injunctions

quote:

---

I’m not an attorney, but it seems like district court should be barred from making decisions that affect activity outside of their district.

---

That's what I said yesterday about the Rhode Island judge. If there is some group in Rhode Island that isn’t getting their grant or loan because of Trump‘s moratorium, then that Rhode Island judge should have jurisdiction strictly over that plaintiff.

He/she should not be allowed to issue a f*cking nationwide injunction affecting every jurisdiction in the country. This is a gross abuse of power. In a recent concurring opinion, Justice Thomas went into great detail about this abuse of power and how it shouldn’t be tolerated nor is it constitutional. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the issue presented in the case and the rest of the Court was not willing to address that issue.

Having said all of that, this is why the Democrats always forum shop to get the most corrupt and politicized judges to do take the most unconstitutional actions to achieve their political agenda.

So, again, there is no way the Democrat filth in Congress will ever agree to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over these matters.

quote:

---

I didn't reference potential constitutional issues

---

Maybe don’t ONLY address things at face value?

You knew this is a federal-level issue. You’re either being intentionally disingenuous or you are not as educated in law as you think.

quote:

---

Having said all of that, this is why the Democrats always forum shop to get the most corrupt and politicized judges to do take the most unconstitutional actions to achieve their political agenda.

---

Yeah like when we get similar injunctions over DEM policy almost always out of Texas or some rural state.

No forum shopping there

quote:

---

You knew this is a federal-level issue.

---

Nobody is arguing that state courts should hear these cases

quote:

---

You’re either being intentionally disingenuous or you are not as educated in law as you think.

---

No. You can add hom all you want because you don't understand the issues but that doesn't speak to my actual point.

quote:

---

Can’t be THAT hard to reschedule and prioritize matters regarding intentional infringement of the Constitution by elected officials.

---

Have you met the government?

Tying your shoes turns into a 8 hour ordeal with no less than 3 arguments over loop, swoop, pull - bunny ears - or Velcro.

if this goes to the supreme court trump loses 6-3. the current make up of the supreme court is 6-3 UNIPARTY. the remedy for trump is impeachment and right now that is a practical impossibility. as jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”. i don't care what some federal judge says from assgrape new hampsire any means of enforcement runs through the executive branch.

right now the UNIPARTY has been served a schit sandwich and their only option is to politely ask for the mayonnaise.

The reason why you're seeing such an increase is by making major policy changes via EO and not legislation and/or proper administrative policies.

Like this flurry of EOs from Trump, which is relative unprecedented in terms of its timing, scope, and the reversal of current legal norms (best example of the birthright citizenship EO which is illegal on its face and a prayer to get a case in front of the Supreme Court.).

Trump's whole schtick is to be norm-defiant, so of course his actions are going to receive more scrutiny.

And, to my point about forum shopping not being a Democrat policy and how much they love specific TX courts (and the 5th Circuit)

quote:

---

Of the 12 nationwide injunctions issued in response to Obama Administration policies, 7 were issued by judges appointed by a Republican President. The 12 injunctions were issued by 8 district courts. Just over half were issued by district courts in Texas:

---

quote:

---

But it would. Adding even one of these cases to the USSC's docket to hear through trial would destroy the annual calendar.

---

So your reasoning for not supporting the USSC prioritization of critical national interest cases regarding corruption in Congress and the agencies is that doing so would cause schedulers to actually earn their paycheck?

Give me a fricking break, dude. You’re helpless.

Nice try, but strictly based on the sheer numbers, the Democrats also lose. Only 8% of Biden‘s executive orders were subject to a nationwide injunction. On the other hand, during the first Trump administration over 29% of his executive orders were stopped via nationwide injunction.



Then you have the examples of states having nothing to do with the particular injunction requested. There was a Washington state judge that issued a nationwide injunction preventing Trump from building the border wall. That had nothing to f*cking do with the state of Washington. But the Democrats forum shopped and knew what a scumbag politicized piece of f*cking filth that judge (and most of the judges in Washington state) was.

When a Texas court issued a nationwide injunction against Biden‘s executive vote on drilling, at least that had something to do with Texas.

and, again, why isn’t that any Democrat or leftist Justice is even concerned about this. That's rhetorical – we know the answer.

quote:

---

Trump's whole schtick is to be norm-defiant,

---

Still in him from his time as a Democrat.

Norm defiant has been a favorite tool of the left for decades.