News And Current Events

153 readers

46 users here now

For everything that is in the news and what's going on in the world.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday to limit federal district judges' ability to affect Trump administration policies on a national scale.

The No Rogue Rulings Act, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., passed the House and limits district courts' power to issue U.S.-wide injunctions, instead forcing them to focus their scope on the parties directly affected in most cases.

All but one Republican lawmaker voted for the bill, which passed 219 to 213. No Democrats voted in favor.

The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander-in-chief took office, targeting a wide range of President Donald Trump's policies, from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But this is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court overrules these sorts of judgments with some regularity.

It is also logical to continue implementing the policies that would be unaffected by such a decision.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That process still needs to happen. You can't just assume what the final outcome is going to be, and just proceed as if it can't be challenged. That defeats the entire purpose of judicial review.

If there is even the slightest possibility that the order given, is in conflict with the Constitution...then allowing it to proceed at all, is also a violation of the Constitution. Putting that order on pause, until the review process can be completed...all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary...is the only logical option.

Or do you think it's fine to keep breaking the law for potentially months, until the Supreme Court can confirm what even the lowest courts were able to determine was illegal?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There is no question, though, that convicted illegal immigrants are deportable, and that people unlawfully residing in the US are deportable.

It has already been established before that rights reserved for US citizens do not exist in the same way for aliens. This doesn't just apply to things like voting and gun ownership, but even things like privacy - there isn't any requirement for digitally spying on foreign citizens, for instance. You need a judge to sign off on digitally snooping an American citizens' computer, but not for an alien.

Or do you think it’s fine to keep breaking the law for potentially months, until the Supreme Court can confirm what even the lowest courts were able to determine was illegal?

They should identify the potential conflict and, based on that, potentially hold what's going on.

Just as such, if there was some fatal flaw or conflict of interest discovered with how a judge or detective conducted himself, it would not justify releasing all the connected criminals immediately. Rather, it would justify reviewing all these cases and then releasing people whom it was determined to have impacted.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 13 hours ago

"It has already been established before that rights reserved for US citizens do not exist in the same way for aliens."

Nope. That is not true at all. It is established law that the rights afforded by the Constitution apply to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. They are inalienable. That word has meaning. They don't necessarily apply to other countries, because those countries have their own laws...but inside the United States, the Constitution is the "law of the land".

"They should identify the potential conflict and, based on that, potentially hold what's going on."

That's literally what challenging these orders in court, does. If someone believes that a law or executive order is in violation of the Constitution, then they need to bring a challenge to court, and let a judge decide. The Judiciary's entire job is to rule on whether or not these things are "Constitutional" or not. And since you can't just bring a case before the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts first...that's where you start.

The lower court judge makes a ruling. If the administration wants to appeal that, then it goes up to the next higher court for their ruling. If you don't like their decision, you can appeal it again...all the way up to the Supreme Court. That's how it works.

"Just as such, if there was some fatal flaw or conflict of interest discovered with how a judge or detective conducted himself, it would not justify releasing all the connected criminals immediately. Rather, it would justify reviewing all these cases and then releasing people whom it was determined to have impacted."

And see, you've got this all wrong. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. The entire point of the justice system is to "review all these cases" individually, and a judge needs to sign off on whatever outcomes are decided, whether that's by jury or otherwise. But each case needs to be tried in court, and the sentence is decided there as well. The president doesn't have the legal authority to simply dictate a new punishment for them. All he has is the power to pardon someone...not to redefine their punishment. That is not his job.