SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Runaway1956 (2926)
(email not shown publicly)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Journal of Runaway1956 (2926)
Justice Gorsuch Compared Nationwide Injunctions to the One Ring From ‘Lord of the Rings’
Justice Neil Gorsuch invoked J.R.R. Tolkien’s tri-part epic “The Lord of the Rings” in a Monday concurrence that suggested the Supreme Court may need to curtail the use of nationwide injunctions.
Gorsuch likened nationwide injunctions to the One Ring, an artifact of malevolent power whose destruction is the driving action of Tolkien’s saga. The justice alluded to the ring as he reviewed the history of litigation regarding the Trump administration’s public charge rule, which will take effect after the high court lifted two injunctions entered against it Monday afternoon.
A lengthy inscription on the band proclaims that the One Ring shall “rule them all.” Gorsuch found that domineering promise an apt descriptor for nationwide injunctions, which remain in force regardless of the outcome of other lawsuits on a given subject.
“Despite the fluid state of things — some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiffs over there — we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit,” Gorsuch wrote.
Nationwide injunctions exceed judicial power, Gorsuch says
Gorsuch argued that nationwide injunctions raise fundamental questions about judicial power. The Constitution does not give federal judges freestanding authority to strike down laws or award damages. Instead, the courts are empowered to resolve specific “cases and controversies” that unfold in the real world between adversarial parties.
Since the judicial power extends to those particular disputes, it follows that courts only have power to bind the parties before them, Gorsuch said. But when a judge-ordered remedy reaches beyond a particular case, Gorsuch suggested courts are transformed from venues for dispute resolution into something else entirely.
“When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place,” Gorsuch wrote. “But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies.”
What’s more, Gorsuch said nationwide injunctions are contrary to our legal tradition. When new legal questions emerge, many different lower courts reach their own conclusions — sometimes divergent — over a long period of time.
In turn, higher courts review those results, then announce controlling principles for future cases. The hope is that higher courts can issue quality, well-informed decisions with the benefit of multiple inputs from the lower courts.
Nationwide injunctions interrupt that process, Gorsuch said, turning ordinary disputes into emergencies.
“By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions,” Gorsuch wrote.
“The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times,” he added. “But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined Gorsuch’s Monday opinion, sounded similar notes in a concurrence to the 2018 travel ban decision. Like the public charge rule, the administration’s travel sanctions were subject to multiple nationwide injunctions.
“These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding,” Thomas wrote. “And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”
Trump administration searches for solution
Nationwide injunctions have beset the Trump administration since the president took office. By the Justice Department’s telling, the federal courts have entered about 40 injunctions against the executive branch since 2017. In contrast, only 27 nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century.
Vice President Mike Pence said that the administration would look for an appropriate case to challenge nationwide injunctions in the Supreme Court during a May 2019 speech to a Federalist Society conference in Washington, D.C.
The question cannot reach the high court on its own. Rather, the justices can only address the question if it is part of an ongoing dispute.
That could leave the government in something of a bind, however, as it raises the possibility the administration would have to lose a case on the merits in order for the justices to reach the injunction question.
That’s because the high court has no reason to decide on an injunction when the government wins and successfully defends its policy. If the challengers lose, they aren’t entitled to anything. Only after the challengers prevail is the question of a remedy relevant.
Liberals and conservatives alike have obtained nationwide injunctions to attain their litigation goals.
Republican state attorneys general used such orders to good effect in the waning days of the Obama administration. Those injunctions, obtained from right-leaning trial courts in places like Texas, blocked an Obama-era policy on transgender bathrooms and a companion initiative to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
– – –
Kevin Daley is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Background Photo “The One Ring” by Rodrigo Olivera. CC BY 2.0.
(Score: 2, Troll) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:38PM (13 children)
The passing of bad laws must be stopped every time. But they can be retried over and over forever and only need to succeed once and then they are ours forever.
Nationwide injunctions have become much the same, just find one judge, in one state, that is logically challenged and/or just agrees with an agenda and the entire nation is bound to that ruling. The nation is left waiting for a fight up to the supreme court...praying it accepts a case months or years later...to even have a chance to undo it.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 01 2020, @04:14PM (12 children)
We should start impeaching activist judges.
At a guess, 3/4 of activist judges are D's, but there are enough R's to work on too. Those who we aren't sure are D or R, are probably doing their jobs correctly.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:15PM (7 children)
The Daily Caller? Are you fucked in the head, Runaway? Listening to Fox News again, have we? Gorsuch is a legal moron. He is the kind of justice who would agree to hear an exaeta case. That bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:47PM (1 child)
> ...exaeta case
Can you define or describe this? Google's latest search returns all kinds of other words but won't define this spelling.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:14PM
It's aristarchus bashing this user: https://soylentnews.org/~exaeta/journal/ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:19PM
"The Daily Caller? Are you fucked in the head, Runaway?"
Yes.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:48AM (3 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @12:02AM (2 children)
Maybe you wackos should stop lapping up fake news from known shitty outlets.
This whole thing is an obvious ploy to push Trump's fascist coup by limiting the courts from restricting judicial power. The system is working as intended, but you just can't see that because you are a fascist sympathizer who just wants to "win" even if winning is just a pretty lie you tell yourself.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Monday February 03 2020, @03:40PM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:00AM
Then stay out of threads if you're not going to stay on topic, otherwise don't complain when people continue the topic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:52PM
Lol, "activist" judges.
You're so politically radicalized you call anyone not with you the enemy. You are one example of the cancer currently destroying the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:42PM (2 children)
We shouldn't impeach a criminal SCROTUS but we should impeach judges Runaway doesn't like?
Ya, totally not fascists /s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:08AM (1 child)
We'll soon get around to impeaching SCROTUMS - then you'll be fucked too.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @12:28AM
Do you even listen to yourself? You're spewing fascist hatred because you support a criminal fascist and so you either realize that and admit to being wrong, or you join him and work yourself up into a murderous fervor.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:07PM (23 children)
Neither are meant to last. The best description is "whimsical", or even "fickle".
the courts are empowered to resolve specific “cases and controversies” that unfold in the real world between adversarial parties.
Exactly. Congress is supposed to write the nationwide "injunction" through the well documented legislative process.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:09PM (22 children)
FOCK! Nationwide Injunction = Executive order!!!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 01 2020, @06:07PM (21 children)
None of the branches are what I would call optimal.
Executive orders have a couple of notable limitations relative to nationwide judicial injunctions.
1) EOs are restricted to the executive branch, the president is elected to lead the executive branch.
2) EOs can be undone at the stroke of a pen by the next leader of the executive branch
Fundamentally EOs have the weight they do due to the extreme growth of the executive branch. I would argue they should be constrained by constraining the executive branch itself.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:35PM (20 children)
EOs can be undone at the stroke of a pen
Injunctions can't be undone by another, maybe higher court?
We need the judiciary to restrain an out of control executive.
Executive orders and injunctions are supposed to be temporary until congress does their job. They are not suitable for day to day operations.
The prez is replacing all the judges anyway. He won't have to worry about any further judicial restraints for much longer.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @07:55PM (13 children)
Since the GOP is all about projecting their crimes on to others I can only figure that Republicans are planning a coup for 2020. Either chesting the election again, or if that doesn't work out without being too obvious then a "national emergency" where we have to suspend the election for some reason.
This is the fall of Rome being spearheaded by the dumbest fucking criminal around. I guess the US deserves it, but the people don't.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:38PM (12 children)
The people asked for it
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:29PM (11 children)
Just a little nitpick here but while Trump did win the Electoral College he did not win the popular vote. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:54PM (9 children)
The people said NO! And if you count 3rd party votes they said FUCK NO!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Sunday February 02 2020, @12:23AM (8 children)
And if you count 3rd party votes...
I suspect they aren't. Pretty easy to fake with our black box voting. Nobody is really checking up.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:14AM (7 children)
Troll
Hmm, looks like black box modding too!
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @05:17PM (6 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:10PM
We are legion. Expect us.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:54PM
I hold no grudge. Just point and laugh. That's how maintain sanity in an insane world
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @09:15PM (3 children)
Maybe you should have TMB do some research on the mods. My guess is he'll refuse because reality isn't what you think and the sock puppets are actually the conservative circle jerkers.
Already caught a TMB post referring to himself in the 3rd person, either forgot to change accounts or to click post as ac. Either way it showed his willingness to fake being someone else. He always swears he doesn't even post AC.
Conservative projection, seems to always be the answer these days. Always seems like one conservative poster disappears and another similar poster suddenly starts appearing. Wonder how many persona reboots have been tried.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @12:41AM (2 children)
No, you're wrong. Generally the system is very good. The dems are far more emotional with their mods. And it's very amusing, but repetitive, when you speak of "projection". But don't stop on my account!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @04:10AM (1 child)
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. You have a tight grasp on the fundammentals of logic and reason. I look forward to your witty obervations delivered with scathing arrogance!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @06:37AM
You have a tight grasp on the fundammentals of logic and reason.
Damn right! And it's about time you start to show some respect! Goddamn know-nothing punk!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday February 02 2020, @12:54AM
He and Clinton got all the electoral votes and almost 95% of the popular vote. The people asked for it. I wish the denials would stop so people would get around to finding replacements for all those incumbents in congress. There is only one way this swamp is going to be drained, and it's not done by reelecting these lepers for another 30 years
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:10PM (1 child)
I suppose I should have left in the fight it for months-to-years and pray the supreme court accepts it and then pray for it to be overturned disclaimer I had in there originally :-\
You put "congress" next to "does their job", was that intentional?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:24PM
You put "congress" next to "does their job", was that intentional?
Congress is just the reflection of what the voters decide. We can't insult congress without offending the people that keep putting them there for such a long time. I guess people like stale bread...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:17AM (2 children)
I think you've got that skewed a bit.
Congress is the most powerful authority in the land. Based on their control of the purse, they have ultimate control over everything.
Congress has abdicated some of their power and authority with the stupid-ass war powers acts. They don't want to be bothered with doing the dirty work, so they shrugged it all off on the executive.
But, if congress actually does their job, and legislates things (immigration reform, for example?) then executive orders mean little. The judiciary is there to settle disputes between legilative and executive. If the prez writes an EO that is clearly in violation of laws that congress has written, the EO will almost always lose. The best chance for an EO to succeed against a law, is that the Supremes decide that the particular law is unconstitutional.
It's fair to say that government is borked because a few hundred assholes in congress are incompetent at their jobs. Add in their laziness, with their self aggrandizement and self interests. Any congress critter who is more interested in enriching himself than he is in enriching the nation should be summarily executed. After the first 20 or 50, the rest would get down to business, and actually run this country for the benefit of citizens.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:12PM (1 child)
But the Constitution does not say they can give up such power and authority, so this is simply unconstitutional anyway.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:46PM
That would be interesting to argue. Pick a side, either side, and try to justify the abdication of power. To my thinking, those powers may be given to the prez, but only for very limited durations, with very specific goals in mind. Couched in very flowery and legal language, it would be something like: Great Britain has offended us, and we want them to suffer greatly, but we don't want them destroyed. Send the Navy and the Air Force to England and make them very uncomfortable for the next 5 years. Stop all trade with the continent, and don't allow any Brits to vacation anywhere except their own islands.
There you have a duration, and definite goals, stated pretty clearly.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:52AM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday February 01 2020, @05:49PM (10 children)
Nationwide injunctions are needed to challenge and countermand unjust executive orders. The courts prevent the executive from exceeding its authority. In theory that is a good thing. Ultimately congress is supposed to sort it out. All that's needed is for the voters to elect a competent congress.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:25AM (9 children)
That is not untrue. But, we have a problem problem with special interests shopping the jurisdictions to find a judge sympathetic to their cause. That problem is compounded when some judge is willing to exceed his authority. At times, we effectively have an Army lieutenant telling the Marine Commandant what he may or may not do. Or, fifth echelon beauracrats telling front line troops how to do their jobs. Or, in civilian terms, interns fresh out of college telling plant managers how to run their factories.
If you need/want a nationwide injunction, then you really need to be headed directly to the Supreme Court. No judge junior to the SC justices has the authority to issue injunctions that will bind the entire government of the United States.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:54AM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:35AM
The same special interests corrupt the prez. We need the backstop, imperfect as it is. For now it helps protect the voters from themselves when they elect swamp alligators.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Troll) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @05:38PM (6 children)
Also, the problem with the theory that judges should not issue injunctions... The injunction is deeply rooted in our legal system. Because laws get passed by congress with no review, nobody knows if a law is enforcable until the judicial branch passes upon it. There is a concept called res judicata. Basically, after a court rules on the issue and all appeals are exausted, a party to the lawsuit generally cannot re-litigate the issue if it was decided on the merits (as opposed to decided on jurisdictional grounds). res judicata applies to courts other than the one that issued the ruling too, as long as the party is the same. So when the government loses a case in federal court, other courts aren't free to revisit the issue. res judicata is stronger than precedent, which can be overturned or exceptions made, and different courts can have different precedents, but res judicata applies to the parties. It's deeply embedded in the concept of "finality", that the case must eventually come to a close. There are a few exceptions (foreign court decisions, as one example) but in general you cannot relitigate the merits.
When the government loses a case, it lost. It cannot relitigate that case any more than you or I. It cannot go to a second court and get a second opinion. If the government loses on appeal, that judgement binds it in every court of the same state. This means a federal decision becomes binding in all federal courts. So then, if the court finally decides a practice is illegal, that decision applies nationwide at the conclusion.
A different question, I think, are preliminary injunctions. Can a court issue a nationwide injunction prior to res judicata? I would say no, but there may be circumstances that justify it. A federal court speaks for the United States, not the state they reside in. So nationwide injunctions by federal courts do have some logical merit. But, the appeals process is a safeguard that kicks in before a judgement becomes final, so that would serve to protect the government from abuse by a single judge. So long as the injunction doesn't become nationwide before the government loses its appeals, I don't see opportunity for abuse.
We need to stop trying to neuter the Court System. The Courts are our last defense against corruption, and they enforce the will of the people in terms of our written laws. Our written laws are a greater manifestation of the will of the nation than who we elected in the last cycle. We the people believe in a nation ruled by law, not by men, and the courts need to be empowered to preserve that system.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:18PM
And believe me, exaeta knows all about exhausting appeals, especially about getting them summarily dismissed. Nice he has picked up some Latin legalese, though.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:37PM (4 children)
Yes, injunctions are an important part of litigation. However, as Gorsuch points out, the injunction should apply to the litigants in that particular court case. That is, if I get an injunction against the police to stop parking at the end of my driveway to operate their radar guns, that will ONLY apply to my local police, on my property. It won't apply to every driveway in every county within the state, and it certainly won't apply to all police forces across the nation.
So - an immigration issue arises. There is an injunction to prevent the US from enforcing a law that the complainant doesn't like. That injunction applies to THAT COMPLAINANT ONLY, not to 3,000 other individuals who make the same or similar claims against the government, in 1000 other jurisdictions.
That is key to Gorsuch's statements. If 3,000 individuals are to be protected (or not) by an injunction, it takes 3,000 separate injunctions from each of those aforementioned 1,000 jurisdictions.
The problem is, with 1,000 different judges viewing and reviewing the circumstances in each of those 3,000 cases, you're going to get (at a minimum) 100 differing opinions on the subject. THAT is what the appeals process is for. More senior judges, in more senior jurisdictions weigh in on some, or all, of the lower court's decisions, until finally, the Supreme Court settles the issue, one way or another.
One judge has zero authority to shut the government down. That one judge may only defy the government on individual cases, one at a time.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Sunday February 02 2020, @10:54PM (3 children)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @12:22AM
Now you're getting it, please remain vigilant for such fascist policies. We have so many we already need to work out of our system from the patriot pretense.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @04:51AM (1 child)
Yes, it does. That is what it is there for. That is the judiciary's job.
And, again, judges around the nation can and often do arrive at different conclusions, with similar evidence put before them. Those opposing decisions need to be reviewed by superior courts, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. Three junior judges in Podunk do not equal the 9 justices at the Supreme Court.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Monday February 03 2020, @03:50PM
The point is that if the court decides that stopping Iranians who are Americans citizens and detaining them without access to a lawyer is illegal, not every Iranian American should be held without bail and without a lawyer with the sole recourse of "sue afterwards".
A big problem with the "sue afterwards" mentality is that the government is usually immune to retrospective relief (monetary awards). You can only get prospective relief (injunctions). So if you can't enjoin the government in general, and they are immune to being sued after the fact, the government is entirely unaccountable.
If we got rid of the 11th Amendment and/or Qualified Immunity and allowed people to get money awards against the government when it broke the law, then individual cases would make more sense. But as it stands right now, injunctions against the whole government are the only real tool the judiciary has to restrain the government when it establishes a pattern of breaking the law.
Nationwide injunctions, after appeals are over, make tons of sense. The Supreme Court does not need feedback from multiple courts before taking up an issue, that is dereliction of judicial duty. If the decision was wrong, the Supreme Court should take up the case right then and there, not leave multiple, inconsistent decisions on the books before deciding to settle it but only for future cases, leaving the original inconsistencies alone...
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:40PM (3 children)
Just another fascist trying to ban end to end encryption.
The only argument you make anymore is "but Democrats are worse" while having no citations that aren't refuted by the Republicans saying "hold my beer."
You support fascists unapologetically, that makes you a fascist Runaway. A dirty little fascist who likes playing "pretend patriots" like a bunch of little girls having tea time with their dolls*.
*sorry women for the comparison, but it just tweaks the nose of these rugged individualists so much
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @10:52PM
Awww, conservatives don't like their dirty laundry being aired.
Here ya go https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-cuts-no-boost-us-economy-gdp-2020-1 [businessinsider.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @11:44PM
Mod flamebait all you want, it is still true. Your Republicans are busy trying to restrict your freedoms but you're too partisan to care.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @04:57PM
Let's be intellectually honest about this proposed legislation. The EFF is more accurate in describing the bill [eff.org], which is being proposed by Graham and Richard Blumenthal. The EFF correctly notes that it gives far too much power to the AG to dictate encryption policy, while cautioning that the current AG probably won't use the power wisely.
However, the desire of law enforcement to circumvent encryption doesn't seem to be limited to nominees from one party. Blaming this solely on Republicans is disingenuous, despite my strong dislike for Graham and William Barr. There needs to be a bipartisan effort to reject this proposed legislation.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 01 2020, @08:46PM
You and your bathroom laws are a menace to all women.
Cisgendered women who don't conform to your beauty and dress standards deserve to be treated like trannies, don't they? Tell us how you really feel about unmarried women with short hair.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @01:16AM (20 children)
"Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy."
He is upset that stare courts are making rulings based on existing law and issuing an injunction which allows other courts the use of their precedence. This is literally the opposite of fascism, giving states the power to overrule federal policy.
Similar to sanctuary cities (which piss off and cheer on conservatives at the same time, but liberals are just "meh do whatcha gotta do") this is what you conservatives are always crying about with states rights. Don't tell me your outrage is reserved for violations of the 2nd, and 1st when it's you that is being, ehm, persecuted? So far I haven't seen Republicans actually oppressed other than socially.
These injunctions are simply limiting executive power, something you conservatives have always been fans of. What is happening is that the real authoritarians are mascarading as your leaders, your friends, while setting the precedent for unlimited executive power. This is precisely what you screamed about Obama doing, and you weren't wrong! He abused executive power in little steps.
Remember what the libertarians keep saying, both parties are the same. That is true for those beholden to their party's owners. If you don't like the idea of a liberal dictator, then you'd better stand up to the conservative ones!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @01:21AM
Off the bat "far right" is not a proper characterization, I just didn't think to edit the defintion.
There can be "liberal" dictators even though it goes against the word definitions. Far left dictatorships are super possible, take the communist revolution in China. The only problem was the Chinese were just coming out of millenia of Emperor rule and so Mao became the next emperor. They've been sorting out their culture ever since, but when Mao and the government system switched to dictstorship is when it truly went tits up.
States rights sre important as the microcosm of central vs. local authority. Do not give the position of POTUS the power of dictstorship. It will filter down the line branches of government as all power structures do and we'll literally be in 1984. I'm convinced we've fractured time at this point :P
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:29AM (18 children)
While you wander around out there in left field, mumbling nonsense, let me remind you that "states rights" simply do not apply to some rogue city passing laws contrary to federal and state laws. When a mayor declares that his city will not obey federal law, the governor should send in the militia, and remove that mayor from office.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:51AM (4 children)
Especially when said mayor is an idiotic oaf sheeper vowing to not enforce reasonable legislation on lethal weaponry.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @12:08PM (3 children)
WTF is "reasonabole legislation"? I've never heard of it. Is that a new legal test, used by the courts? Is "reasonable" also "constitutional"? I know that the courts are supposed to test for constitionality. Does your reasonable pass constitutional, or not? What's that smell, anyway? Something smells awful in here.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:14PM (2 children)
Good question! Is "reasonabole" something like "hyperbole"?
We're coming for you guns, Runaway. There will be an injunction, soon. Wait for it!!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:27PM (1 child)
Whatever. Molon labe.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @11:20PM
We have been over this before. The proper spelling in YOUR case is "Moron Labia".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @07:35PM (11 children)
Ya, arrest those gun nuts sanctuary cities!!
Yer such a dumbass.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @08:25PM (10 children)
Ahhhhhh, BUT - gun rights aren't state's rights. The second amendment is specifically aimed at PEOPLE who own weapons, not states. And, the state is violating, or threatening to violate CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Huge ass difference.
It would take a constitutional amendment to change the laws that Dems have in their sights, or even to justify a large number of laws already passed.
There is no constitutional amendment required to enforce federal law over a rogue city. So, the feds can come visit these 2A sanctuaries, look around, nod their heads in approval, and tell the state to go fuck off.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @09:17PM (9 children)
Partisan fool supporting a traitorous coup by the GOP. Fascist soon-to-be literal nazi.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 02 2020, @09:30PM (8 children)
If it is traitorous to stand against progressive/liberal/democrat objectives, I'll proudly wear the name. Thank you very much.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @12:07AM (7 children)
Interesting, so you support treason when it is against your political opponents? How blindly you goose step, and as always with such movements you do it with pride thinking that you're the good guy.
Gee, that joker who hounds you about taking your guns really does break your brain. You shouldn't get so easily worked up, you'll more than likely shoot one of your neighbors who needs to borrow some sugar.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @04:45AM (6 children)
"defend the United States and it's constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @07:02AM (5 children)
Yet you don't understand that threatening violence over political differences makes you the traitor? Guess we'll either get a real coup by Trump and the GOP, in which case you'll happily murder protesters, or we'll get a political shift away from corruption and you'll go murderin' dem commie libs. Either way it looks like you just want to hurt people.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @07:19AM (4 children)
Maybe you missed the point where the governor of Virginia threatened law-abiding citizens with violence if they didn't bring their guns to him. When the governor threatens violence over political differences, it's time to remove the sumbitch, by whatever means. Wake up and smell the coffee. And, see my latest journal entry.
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @03:42PM (3 children)
It is hilarious, I pointed out that sanctuary cities are a proper version of local government taking power back and you flipped your shit cuz immigrants. Then I point out your hypocrisy, but it is about guns so then it's all muh freedoms!
There is no hope for the terminally brainwashed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 03 2020, @06:04PM (2 children)
No hypocrisy at all. The 2A sancuaries are defying state laws, and in the process defending federal law, and the constitution.
Those partisan immigration sancuary cities are defying federal law, as well as state law in some cases.
I don't know about brainwashing - maybe you should just try thinking. Careful though - don't strain yourself!
Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:04AM (1 child)
Sooooo terminally brainwashed it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 04 2020, @02:29AM
and you're not
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Monday February 03 2020, @05:43PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @04:46PM (2 children)
We'll regret it if we don't rein in the courts, but the Senate has also made this a complete disaster. Because the Senate has tried to engineer a Republican takeover of the courts, federal courts have been stacked with right wing judges who can then abuse their power, such as what Gorsuch is describing. I generally believe that the Supreme Court judges are thoughtful in their rulings, but that's not always the case with lower courts.
Judges have lifetime appointments to limit the ability of the judicial branch to be swayed by political whims or abuses. That's also why the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures, and why Senators serve longer terms. The Senate was supposed to be insulated from political whims, in contrast to the House.
Republicans have done everything they can to block Democrat-appointed judges and to stack the courts with right wing judges. When Democrats had the majority, Senate Republicans filibustered a large number of judges appointed by Obama at an unprecedented rate. Courts were left understaffed. Democrats ended filibusters for presidential nominees except Supreme Court judges [politico.com] because of Republican obstructionism.
Once Republicans got control of the Senate, they once again refused to confirm Obama's judicial nominees. Evidence indicates that Senate Republicans blocked judicial nominees in Obama's final two years at a rate unprecedented in recent history [brookings.edu], leaving Trump an unprecedented amount of vacancies to fill. McConnell refused to even hold hearings about Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Then the Senate eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees [nbcnews.com] to get Gorsuch confirmed. Now, McConnell says the Senate would fill a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year with a Trump nominee [washingtonpost.com], a complete reversal from his refusal to even hold hearings on Merrick Garland.
It was a dangerous precedent for Democrats to eliminate the filibuster back in 2013. However, Republicans persistently blocked efforts by Obama and Democrats to fill judicial vacancies at all levels. Once Trump got control of the White House, the vacancies were filled with right wing judges. Senate Republicans went a step further than Democrats to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I sure hope that Democrats don't eventually expand the Supreme Court. It's time to end the Republican abuses instead of playing the same game.
Because the courts are no longer as insulated from legislative politics, it's time to scale back the power of individual judges. While this might initially work against Democrats looking to overturn Trump's policies and executive orders, it's a good thing in the long term, particularly given how much the courts have been politicized.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @12:18AM (1 child)
No, it is an essential check on the executive branch. The chance that some executive order will be unconstitutional is much higher than not. Otherwise there would likely not be a need for the order because existing policies would cover it.
The executive branch has been slowly increasing its power for decades, you don't want to hamstring the judicial. I'm much less worried about judicial rulings than executive orders, at least we have procedures for appealing a court's decision.
Fascism, not even once!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2020, @02:53AM
I understand your point and it's a valid one. A big part of the issue is still with Congress. The executive branch has seized power because Congress has been shirking its responsibility as a coequal branch of government. It isn't simply about partisan politics because the obligations of Congress do not change on the basis of which party the President is from. Congress understood this in the past.
FDR got tired of courts striking down his New Deal policies and bickered with the courts in a way that is not all that different from what Trump is doing. With the exception of Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, and the first address by Calvin Coolidge, no President had addressed Congress in person since John Adams. Thomas Jefferson ended the practice because he felt it was far too much like a monarch issuing a decree from the throne. Only the one state of the union address by Coolidge was broadcast nationally before he resumed the written form that had been used during virtually all of the 19th century. FDR resumed the practice of giving a speech to a joint session of Congress, which was broadcast nationally. He used radio to shape public opinion in favor of his policies. And he wanted to limit judicial oversight of the New Deal policies.
As a result, FDR proposed expanding the Supreme Court to 15 members. Democrats enjoyed a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In fact, the majorities enjoyed by the Democrats were the largest for either party since Reconstruction [wikimedia.org]. Democrats could have pushed through FDR's plan, effectively giving them broad control of all three branches of government. This didn't happen and a big part of why is that the Democrats in Congress refused to go along with FDR's plan. Democrats stood up to a very popular president from their own party, refusing to effectively eliminate the judicial oversight.
Congress needs to do its job. Everything is being left to the judicial branch, and Republicans are doing their best to remove that obstacle. Unlike congressional Democrats of the 1930s, the Republicans in Congress are fully complicit in stacking the courts. We wouldn't be relying so heavily on the judicial branch if the legislative branch would do its job.