Who’s in favor of eliminating nationwide injunctions?…
Trump is. Do you think the federal branch should go unchecked?
Replies to: Who’s in favor of eliminating nationwide injunctions?…
Me. They are abusing it. Let the SCOTUS decide,
(no message)
I would have them go thru an emergency/expedited appeal BEFORE they can go into effect
Maybe to SCOTUS. The Circuits are also too ripe for forum shopping.
Only until the end of Trump’s 3rd term
Actually, I’m a firm believer in the Separation of Powers doctrine.
By "federal branch" do you mean POTUS? COTUS? Agencies? Interestingly, this cuts both ways (R/L).
After all, there have been nationwide injunctions against unconstitutional or unlawful ATF decisions, and the Right has needed those decisions to check an otherwise unchecked POTUS/bureaucracy making up rules that Congress never authorized them to make. So, even if Trump wins on this approach, it is not a clear victory for the Right. So, it really isn't a partisan left vs. right issue. It is a structural/process issue regarding how our Republic operates.
So, the issue is, unchecked elected POTUS / bureaucrats vs. unchecked, unelected regional judges having national effect with their pronouncements coupled with forum shopping / a race to the most favorable courthouses.
Seems like there should be room for compromise. Maybe injunctions which are immediately appealable to SCOTUS?...requiring their decision to make it national or to restrict POTUS, and limiting it to local effect if not ratified by SCOTUS. But, wow, that would substantially increase the workload for SCOTUS. I don't know the answer. I do know that I would like POTUS to be implementing policy, and the courts to be implementing process limitations. But, given the race to the favorable courthouse, we have unelected judges implementing policy, and that seems like a bad idea. At lease we can vote POTUS out of office.
I'm open to other ideas on this. I'm not trying to take a partisan stand here.
POTUS of course. And I agree with Chris. No compromise.
(no message)
No compromise. It’s the system. The executive cannot overrule the judiciary. Full stop.
It can appeal lower court decisions. It cannot ignore them.
If the courts are ignored by the president whenever he disagrees, we are no longer a nation of laws.
I'm curious of you supported the Democrat proposal to pack the Court?
(no message)
Congress can pass laws regarding the structure and jurisdiction of the courts.
(no message)
Which is the answer cept that they are completely gutless.
(no message)
Congress is gutless. We agree. It has long given too much authority to the Executive Branch.
Whichever executive orders the GOP fails to enact into law (as opposed to just leaving them be EO's), then those EO's will just be reversed when the current elected dictator leaves DC, and the next elected dictator from the other party steps into office. The Legislative Branch needs to reclaim its constitutional powers that has ceded to the Executive Branch.
Yet you believe the judiciary can shut down the executive without due process.
Of course, you love leftist judges.
The Board’s Due Process expert has weighed in. Thanks for making our day, PA.
Truly adorable.
No need to be an expert to prove you wrong.
Keep losing.
It should only if the injunction goes against the MAGA cause.
(no message)