The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#11,304
#11,304
FortSanders said:
The Supreme Court gets civil and criminal cases through the appellate process, through aggrieved parties, who have actionable claims, called standing. A plaintiff can't file a claim unless he can show he was damaged in some way. A criminal defendant by definition has standing. The Supremes are most likely to take cases where there is a conflict in the Circuits, meaning an individual won a case in one Circuit and another has lost the same case in another Circuit. The Court likes cases that are fully briefed and argued at trial and on appeal. Nationwide injunctions prevent that, because a single ruling by a single judge creates a precedent other courts have to respect. Nationwide injunctions at the lowest federal courts inhibit the appeals process. That's why they are pernicious.
Click to expand...
I don't like nationwide injunctions. I also (think I) believe there should be a process for the SCOTUS to be able to review presidential executive orders and say, "No. That's unconstitutional. You can't force every person in the nation to give you their guns." or "No. You can't proclaim an end to elections." or "No. You can't deport all Democrat citizens."
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and tbh
#11,306
#11,306
Orangeburst said:
Click to expand...

Jackson is not the only leftist that shouldn't be on the USSC

Tom Fitton
@TomFitton
·
I don't recall any recent Supreme Court opinion that so directly denounces and renounces a dissent, in this case by the leftist Biden appointee Justice Jackson:

JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical query,” post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to “order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.” Post, at 2; see also post, at 10 (“[T]he function of the courts—both in theory and in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law requires in . . . suits for the benefit of all who are protected by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured private parties”); see also post, at 11, n. 3, 15. And, she warns, if courts lack the power to “require the Executive to adhere to law universally,” post, at 15, courts will leave a “gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,” post, at 12.

Rhetoric aside, JUSTICE JACKSON’s position is difficult to pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., post, at 3, 10–12, 16–18. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions. See, e.g., Frost, 93 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 1069 (“Nationwide injunctions come with significant costs and should never be the default remedy in cases challenging federal executive action”). As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned. Post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. But see Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 294 (2023) (“It is a federal court’s judgment, not its opinion, that remedies an injury”). Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere.17
We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.

We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Madison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law sometimes becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law.

JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyzing the governing statute involves boring “legalese,” post, at 3, she seeks to answer “a far more basic question of enormous practical significance: May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?” Ibid. In other words, it is unecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.
 
#11,314
#11,314
Orange_Crush said:
If they are trying to stop it through legal means, what is the problem? Trump's attempts to use other legal means were celebrated, when one legal means was stymied and they looked for other ways.
Click to expand...
What’s missing is the SC decision. Time to move along but they can’t bc they have literally nothing else.
 
#11,315
#11,315
Jxn Vol said:
What’s missing is the SC decision. Time to move along but they can’t bc they have literally nothing else.
Click to expand...
I think they said they are going to abide the SCOTUS ruling, but have plans to try other legal avenues.

Trump had lower courts blocking his (legal) attempts to deport illegal aliens. He abided those and went about other legal means of deportations. The right applauded and the left started the "Trump Ignores the Courts" thread. That thread had folks claiming that changing legal strategies is indication of immoral activities.

The ACLU basically says they're going to do the same thing, and the same Trump-supporters will throw rotten fruit at them, while the same liberals will applaud them and donate to the cause.

Same day, different **** from both sides.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, GroverCleveland and MemphisVol77
#11,316
#11,316
Orange_Crush said:
I think they said they are going to abide the SCOTUS ruling, but have plans to try other legal avenues.

Trump had lower courts blocking his (legal) attempts to deport illegal aliens. He abided those and went about other legal means of deportations. The right applauded and the left started the "Trump Ignores the Courts" thread. That thread had folks claiming that changing legal strategies is indication of immoral activities.

The ACLU basically says they're going to do the same thing, and the same Trump-supporters will throw rotten fruit at them, while the same liberals will applaud them and donate to the cause.

Different day, same **** from both sides.
Click to expand...
Why rotten fruit? When I want to cause damage I throw unripe apples because they do the most harm.

Amateurs
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, MemphisVol77 and Orange_Crush
#11,321
#11,321
n_huffhines said:
Yup

Click to expand...


The supreme court didn't declare anything as unconstituitional. They ruled that that the law currently doesn't allow district courts to make nationwide injunctions while allowing that congress could pass legislation authorizing such authority in the future. The article from Reason that you posted earlier says as much.

And that video certainly wasn't staged. Certainly spontaneous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, MemphisVol77 and tbh
#11,322
#11,322
TrumpedUpVol said:
One of the most unintentionally hilarious whining videos I’ve seen.
Click to expand...
I normally don't make it through the moronic liberal whiny videos, but I really enjoyed his stupidity. One of my favorite parts was how he mentioned several times that half the six judges he was crying about were unqualified while completely ignoring the dem appointees one of which may be the dumbest person on earth.

I also love that you just know huff was sitting there enthusiastically nodding with approval the whole time. lmao
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, GroverCleveland, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
#11,323
#11,323
just bob said:
I normally don't make it through the moronic liberal whiny videos, but I really enjoyed his stupidity. One of my favorite parts was how he mentioned several times that half the six judges he was crying about were unqualified while completely ignoring the dem appointees one of which may be the dumbest person on earth.

I also love that you just know huff was sitting there enthusiastically nodding with approval the whole time. lmao
Click to expand...
Huff entered the rarified air of VOLLean-level idiocy about a month ago. I’m sure he probably spends the majority of his waking hours crying crocodile tears for illegals, the Iranian nuclear program and Hamas terrorists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top