Technically over the administration's "partial stay" request, a ruling could allow the admin to start implementing the unconstitutional order. Also: More on DOJ Civil Rights.
The only reason they’re comfortable now asking for SCOTUS to forbid nationwide injunctions — on which they have relied heavily in the past when they opposed executive actions — is because they clearly believe by the time this administration is over, they won’t need them ever again. It’s a barely disguised admission they don’t plan to be subjected to the rule of laws they don’t write again.
These are not actions of an administration which intends to ever give up power again. If no one stops them...
Welcome to the end of the first United American Republic. I hope that I'll live to see the second, but I won't be betting my life on it by staying here past 2025.
Amazingly I agree with Harris that the Supreme Court “should declare that enough is enough …”
Enough executive order nonsense, enough court defiance, enough with the unconstitutionality. But my hopes are not high: Chief Justice Roberts is nothing if not an elitist and accommodator.
You don't lift the nationwide injunctions unless you're going to be ruling with the regime on the merits later because you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. The comparison to the Texas case is quite apt.
Well, I guess if leadership of the Civil Rights Division is all political, aren't they all fireable (when, not IF, we get a sane administration back. )
So, if nationwide injunctions are at issue, then going to Kacsmaryck in the Fifth District to get a ruling restricting women's rights or gay rights is now at issue, right? Why should one judge be able to issue rulings that affect the entire country, if this is the case?
See where this goes? Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Re Dhillon: Planned Obsolescence redefined. Probably next is ending the white collar crime division, perhaps a notification that rape is okay if it produces children, and a redefinition of integration.
The reason for the case is local trial lawyers have no business telling the federal government what to do. I believe the law specifically says local trial judges have no jurisdiction outside of their court room. Since at least 1 liberal justice(Kagen) wants the nationwide injunctions stopped, you liberals who don't are probably on the wrong side of the argument.
Another aspect of this issue is judge shopping(98% of which have been done by Democrats). Why are you liberals who wanna keep the status quo ok with judge shopping?
This brings up an interesting question. When the practice of judge shopped local injunctions are ended, how is it gonna work from now on? I guess the cases will go straight to straight to SCOTUS or the level below that? But judge shopping will still be possible at level below SCOTUS won't it?
I am curious as to what a Law Dork's prescription would be for new laws and constitutional amendments in some hypothetical future in which this regime has been ejected from power?
I’d rather be litigating against a bunch of incompetent clowns than seasoned, well trained professionals while trying to defend against Trump’s vile attacks.
I mean would even THIS Court issue an order allowing Citizenship Clause primacy in some jurisdictions, but "pause" following remand in others? IANAL, but a couple of the Justices already have been cited as "questioning" the actual scope of the Clause, and " may be" willing to discuss the merits of a more "limited" interpretation.
The only reason they’re comfortable now asking for SCOTUS to forbid nationwide injunctions — on which they have relied heavily in the past when they opposed executive actions — is because they clearly believe by the time this administration is over, they won’t need them ever again. It’s a barely disguised admission they don’t plan to be subjected to the rule of laws they don’t write again.
These are not actions of an administration which intends to ever give up power again. If no one stops them...
Welcome to the end of the first United American Republic. I hope that I'll live to see the second, but I won't be betting my life on it by staying here past 2025.
Amazingly I agree with Harris that the Supreme Court “should declare that enough is enough …”
Enough executive order nonsense, enough court defiance, enough with the unconstitutionality. But my hopes are not high: Chief Justice Roberts is nothing if not an elitist and accommodator.
I find stupifyingly unreal that this is even being considered by the Supreme Court. Even THIS "originalist" Supreme Court.
Thank you, Chris, for your analyses and insight. The fact that the Court scheduled the May 15 hearing is foreboding in its own right.
"Something is rotten is Denmark" if the courts cannot temporarily prohibit, nationwide, a clearly unconstitutional order of a wannabe dictator.
You don't lift the nationwide injunctions unless you're going to be ruling with the regime on the merits later because you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. The comparison to the Texas case is quite apt.
Well, I guess if leadership of the Civil Rights Division is all political, aren't they all fireable (when, not IF, we get a sane administration back. )
They’re going to strip the ability of the courts to issue nationwide injunctions, aren’t they?
So, if nationwide injunctions are at issue, then going to Kacsmaryck in the Fifth District to get a ruling restricting women's rights or gay rights is now at issue, right? Why should one judge be able to issue rulings that affect the entire country, if this is the case?
See where this goes? Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Re Dhillon: Planned Obsolescence redefined. Probably next is ending the white collar crime division, perhaps a notification that rape is okay if it produces children, and a redefinition of integration.
The reason for the case is local trial lawyers have no business telling the federal government what to do. I believe the law specifically says local trial judges have no jurisdiction outside of their court room. Since at least 1 liberal justice(Kagen) wants the nationwide injunctions stopped, you liberals who don't are probably on the wrong side of the argument.
Another aspect of this issue is judge shopping(98% of which have been done by Democrats). Why are you liberals who wanna keep the status quo ok with judge shopping?
This brings up an interesting question. When the practice of judge shopped local injunctions are ended, how is it gonna work from now on? I guess the cases will go straight to straight to SCOTUS or the level below that? But judge shopping will still be possible at level below SCOTUS won't it?
I am curious as to what a Law Dork's prescription would be for new laws and constitutional amendments in some hypothetical future in which this regime has been ejected from power?
I’d rather be litigating against a bunch of incompetent clowns than seasoned, well trained professionals while trying to defend against Trump’s vile attacks.
I mean would even THIS Court issue an order allowing Citizenship Clause primacy in some jurisdictions, but "pause" following remand in others? IANAL, but a couple of the Justices already have been cited as "questioning" the actual scope of the Clause, and " may be" willing to discuss the merits of a more "limited" interpretation.