re: Simple solution to judicial overreach and nationwide injunctions

Here's a solution.
(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

The Federal Government does not have to post such a bond but States and other filers do.

The amount must be sufficient to compensate the loser, so if you ask for a national TRO or injunction in the general sense we’re talking about millions — or even billions. In the case of fraudulent payments being uncovered, as is currently the case, the potential damage from an injunction is in the tens of billions of dollars and the moving states must post said bond.

Who’s going to write that bond? Nobody, in that sort of amount, so they’d have to post it in cash.

Why isn’t the Trump Administration demanding that said bonds be posted with all such filings?

quote:

---

Irrelevant to me, Scalia, and Thomas. Why are you anti-Scalia?

---

You are dumber than pounded f*cking dirt.

Scalia is an originalist, and he would first look to the language of a particular constitutional provision when the language is clear and unambiguous. When the language is not clear, it is perfectly appropriate to look at what was meant at the time. That’s part of being an originalist.

What is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction"? That could have multiple meanings. But what is clear from the history of the amendment is that it was not meant to apply to criminals who come here illegally. And, YES, Scalia would definitely look to the history when the language is not clear and unambiguous.

Seriously, quit f*cking regurgitating the asinine f*cking talking points you get from your comrades in the mainstream media. I would say to start thinking for yourself, however, anyone who has read any of your drivel on this board knows that that’s absolutely f*cking impossible.

quote:

---

Scalia is an originalist, and he would first look to the language of a particular constitutional provision when the language is clear and unambiguous. When the language is not clear, it is perfectly appropriate to look at what was meant at the time.

---

LITERALLY what the judges in WKA did.

quote:

---

But what is clear from the history of the amendment

---

Scalia specifically rejected this. I provided you 2 quotes earlier on his beliefs in looking at this.

quote:

---

Scalia would definitely look to the history when the language is not clear and unambiguous.

---

Historical use? Yes. WKA already did that.

He would not look to the legislative history, however.

quote:

---

I said my fear was that they wouldn't follow the law,

---

And then you said this:

quote:

---

That's literally exactly what happened.

---

You claimed they didn't follow the law, then tried to crawfish. Just say you misspoke, don't pretend you didn't post something that's there for everybody to see.

quote:

---

2. All we need is a law saying that a district court judge's opinion or ruling only applies to his district. Appeals court rulings only apply to their circuit. SCOTUS is the only court that has the power to issue a nationwide injunction.

---

That would solve most of this.

They'd probably need some form of an national injunction, which I'd imagine would have more specific evidentiary requirements and would be under the DC court (as this is the function of the DC court generally with the administrative state, which is the nexus of almost all of these disputes currently).

quote:

---

Would need a constitutional ammendment Separation of powers. Same reason judicial can’t overstep executive. Legislative can’t overstep judicial.

---

Wrong. Go read Article lll of the Constitution. The Constitution established the Supreme Court, but empowered Congress to create the lower court system.

They do not have to. There is no legal basis for the judges ruling. They should ignore his order and then the DOJ and SCOTUS should remove that judge for misconduct and prosecute him.

Here, since you’re so intellectually dishonest and too prideful/stupid to admit you are wrong, I’ll post the entire quote, highlight both of our intended points, then explain them and edit your post to what you should have said if you want to say that your main point was your “fear”…


Original Quote:

quote:

---

I said a long time ago my fear over Trump and DOGE was they'd do what they did last time and be too aggressive ant not follow the law properly and get DOGE tied up. That's literally exactly what happened.

---

Your supposed point in your words:

quote:

---

I said a long time ago my fear over Trump and DOGE was they'd do what they did last time and be too aggressive ant not follow the law properly and get DOGE tied up.

---

The part the other poster and I referenced:

quote:

---

That's literally exactly what happened.

---

Your post, edited to fit your later-stated intent:

quote:

---

I said a long time ago my fear over Trump and DOGE was they'd do what they did last time and be too aggressive ant not follow the law properly and get DOGE tied up.

---

Are you following now, fella? Quit being an intentionally ignorant spaz.

The quoted text about “Trump/DOGE not following law properly” is at the end of your sentence, directly followed by:

quote:

---

That’s literally exactly what happened.

---

That is what made me ask you to give examples of Trump/DOGE not following law properly, to which you spazzed out and acted like my question was unclear.

Keep track of your shite, man. If someone calls you out, re-read the post they are referencing.

In thread after thread, and post after post, you exude this air of intellectual superiority, even when you are wrong about remembering shite that you said your own damn self.

That’s why people here can’t stand you, more so than your twisting of statutes and decisions to support your intellectually dishonest positions (which admittedly are expected from an attorney).

Be a good person, admit your mistakes and misstatements, and fricking continue your arguments. Life is easier that way.

Also, don’t feel so desperate to provide input at every fricking opportunity you get on this board… may help you clear up your thoughts processes.

Impeach the egregious ones and it’ll tamper back down to what the founding fathers wanted….