News And Current Events

152 readers

2 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 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

14 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.

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Will this new law also apply in Western District of Texas, Amarillo Division?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

Every Republican is a traitor. Every single one.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Democrats can choose to start physically impending the legislative process whenever they feel like pushing back against the coup.

I keep watching the Neoliberals, and for some reason they aren't doing anything that STOPS what is happening.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

They might consider doing it eventually. I suspect the heat death of the universe will come first, though.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Congress has no authority to pass legislation that contradicts the Constitution. The Judiciary is a check on presidential authority. Period.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And that still exists. It is merely the case that SCOTUS will have to check Federal power laws, and that the whole system doesn't get torpedoed by a single Federal circuit judge making a single ruling on a case that may not even be 100% related to the bulk of what the policy is designed to do.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago

Good points.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Except that's how the entire judicial system works. Saying that a lower court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling, undermines that entire system, since every new case begins in the lower courts. A ruling like this, would effectively make it impossible to bring any case against the federal government, since the starting point for litigation would now be considered invalid.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They still have a jurisdiction to make a ruling, but not one that pauses the entire federal act when it is clear it will be appealed up to SCOTUS.

So the idea would be that a court with jurisdiction in California can make a ruling which applies to stopping a single Californian in unique circumstances from being deported under the specific law, but this cannot completely destroy the totality of the law.

And, just as we've seen, some of these rulings that would have crippled the government's ability to remove violent criminals from society do go to SCOTUS and SCOTUS sides with the law.

They're working out the kinks in the system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are no "kinks in the system".

The idea is that the law is the law, no matter which court is making the ruling. If the president is in violation of the Constitution, then any judge has the authority to stop it.

They can appeal that decision if they choose to, but it's not like there are some judges that are allowed to determine what's legal, and others that aren't. If the order is illegal, it should be stopped as soon as possible...not weeks or months later, when the Supreme Court finally gets involved.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

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] 5 points 4 days ago

That is the least efficient way to do it so, it seems on brand.