Then I suppose SCOTUS no longer has that power either… or are they speshul? It would be unlike them to cede powers. We do have the sickening example of goobers in the House & Senate more than willing the heap their powers on trump’s fat lap saying “we don’t want them any more”.
4 Likes
There is certainly a good-faith case for reforming the system of ever increasing nationwide injunctions. But that wasn’t seriously being discussed in today’s arguments nor will that likely be result from any such decision from this Court.
If you want to see what a real solution would look like, there is a good one here:
(c) Panel Systems. — The last set of proposals recommends multi-judge panels review cases where nationwide relief is requested — requiring multiple judges to agree on the remedy. This agreement could lend credibility that the complete relief principle is operating as it should. Representative Casten proposes deterring forum shopping by creating a randomized multi-circuit panel of thirteen judges to hear cases against the Executive concerning challenges to statutory or executive actions.160 A supermajority of at least nine judges would be required to invalidate the action.161 Senator Wyden and Representative Ross’s Fair Courts Act of 2023162 would codify former Fifth Circuit Judge Gregg Costa’s proposal to require plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief to be heard by a three-judge panel of randomly assigned judges.163
Nationwide injunctions are valuable tools in our system of checks and balances, but as per usual, a small selection of conservative Judges have basically abused them to drive the system into crisis. The solution won’t come from other conservative Justices, because they are part of the problem. It will only get solved by either the bad-actor Judges getting removed (unlikely, even if warranted) or their power to abuse nationwide injunctions is removed (likely, with court reform that includes the above).
7 Likes
Unfortunately, what is looking like a real possibility is that they will reserve the right to issue nationwide injunctions only to the Supreme Court. That means they will still have that power even if they remove it from every other Federal Judge in the country.
Basically, what you’d expect from a thoroughly corrupt Court.
9 Likes
My prediction is that in regard to universal injunctions, the Supreme Court will come up with some sort of test. Every Supreme court regardless if it is conservative, liberal and hopefully even in this case “Republican”, loves to come up with 3 or 4 or 7 part tests to determine how to apply the law and Constitution.
That is given in some cases the abuse and in some cases the necessity of District Courts issuing nationwide injunctions, a normal court would come up with some sort of test that could be applied by the District Court and quickly appealed to determine on a case by case basis if a nationwide injunction is the proper relief.
But I completely agree with the righteous indignation of the both-sides-now-ism we see from the press and the Court.
2 Likes
John Roberts will shit in a river and then complain when he can’t swim, to borrow a phrase from the late, great Lou Reed
4 Likes
Has there ever been a more damaging, a more stupid, a less well thought out “decision” by any SCOTUS than the one giving Donald Trump permission to be the evil son of a bitch that he has always wanted to have the power to be?
1 Like
The freaking Constitution is NOT all over the place on Birthright Citizenship. It is pretty damn clear. They (SCOTUS) can quibble all they want over whether one judge can rule for the entire country ( it was just fine and dandy when the rightwing judges were ruling on any Biden EO …even though the cases were not within their jurisdiction) But why is anyone surprised at the Massive, Blatant Hypocrisy coming out of this fascist party?
4 Likes
No.
It’s grounds for impeachment and removal of those Justices in my opinion. They violated their Judicial oaths by creating a standard that anyone, let alone the most powerful person in the country, is above the law. It was an extra-Constitutional decision that flies in the face of precedent, history and even the foundation that we are a country based on laws, not men.
4 Likes
Yes:
“Roberts Court.”
3 Likes
I’m conflicted on this. If it claps a stopper over Kacsmaryk’s infernal capers (h/t Patrick O’Brian) then there’s a good side to it. But I am not confident that the rules will be the same for all sides, per Hoyle.
2 Likes
And a majority that knows it will be a majority for a long time.
2 Likes
This is sort of a Dredd Scott court in my mind, with their “Unitary Executive” which is indistinguishable from tyrannical dictatorship. With their magical-immunity-bubble gift to Trump, they’ve sealed the deal and made themselves irrelevant.
They can’t enforce anything. What they’re doing now in opposition to Trump is too little too late. Trump will now start likely start deporting large #'s of people to Sudan and Libya, which may be a one-way-trip death-sentence for them. As they’d say in Yiddish, It’s a shanda!, i.e. - scandalous and shameful.