Posted on 03/19/2025 2:48:06 PM PDT by 7thson
Question for everyone.
Why can't the Trump administration basically inform these courts - by a nationwide press conference/speech, by a letter, and/or in person DOJ attorneys - that because of the 1948 Supreme Court decision, the only court that the President will pay attention to is the USSC. That this administration will continue to do what it is doing and lower courts have no lawful basis in attempting to dictate Executive policy?
I'm going out to dinner now and will read your responses upon my return.
The president can try anything, but basically that’s not how it works. District courts hear cases, you can appeal to the circuit court, and in most cases the Supreme Court then decides whether to hear a final appeal. You can also try an emergency appeal, but again the SC decides whether to hear it.
Roberts is reluctant to step in...I think Trump has to keep pushing and force him to settle this one way or another...I would also have some Congressional Republicans to start floating the idea of reorganizing the federal courts to prod Roberts a little. I doubt he wants that to happen on his watch...
Since the “executive branch” “executes” the laws, then the courts, indeed, have zero power.
I did a Perplexity.ai chat early that was discouraging to the idea. I just did another one citing the Jefferson case. Here is the transcript of that chat.
Here is the last query.
Would Stuart v. Laird be honored today if Congress tried to abolish a court now?
While Stuart v. Laird (1803) established a precedent for Congress's authority to reorganize the federal judiciary, it's unlikely that this precedent would be honored in its entirety if Congress attempted to abolish a court today. Several factors contribute to this assessment:
- Evolution of constitutional interpretation: Since 1803, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution has evolved significantly. The Court now places greater emphasis on the separation of powers and judicial independence.
- Lifetime appointment clause: Modern interpretations of Article III of the Constitution, which guarantees lifetime appointments for federal judges, would likely conflict with the wholesale abolition of courts.
- Judicial independence concerns: There is now a stronger emphasis on protecting the judiciary from political interference. Allowing Congress to abolish courts could be seen as a threat to this independence.
- Historical context: Stuart v. Laird was decided in a unique political climate, shortly after the contentious election of 1800. Today's Court might view such a case differently, given the changed political landscape.
- Precedent since Stuart v. Laird: Subsequent cases and legal developments have further defined the relationship between Congress and the judiciary, potentially limiting Congress's ability to make sweeping changes to the court system.
However, Congress still retains significant power over the structure of the federal judiciary:
- Court creation and modification: Congress can still create new courts or modify the jurisdiction of existing ones, as long as it doesn't infringe on the core functions of the judiciary.
- Budgetary control: Congress maintains the power of the purse, which can indirectly influence the operation of courts.
- Constitutional authority: The Constitution still grants Congress the power to "ordain and establish" inferior courts, which provides some flexibility in judicial organization.
In conclusion, while Stuart v. Laird might not be fully honored today, its legacy continues to shape the balance of power between Congress and the judiciary. Any attempt by Congress to abolish a court would likely face significant constitutional challenges and would be subject to much stricter scrutiny than in 1803.
-PJ
I’m getting tired of explaining this, as in true FR tradition, most posters don’t or can’t read...
There are core legal issues that are only going to ever be resolved in a courtroom. The Constitution gives the Judiciary branch the power to establish “inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”.
Though “no one denies that district courts have the power to enjoin a defendant’s conduct anywhere in the nation . . . as it relates to the plaintiff, sharp disagreement exists over courts’ ability to issue relief as applied to nonparties.”
That’s the issue.
These judges are making decisions for every conceivable plantiff, anywhere in the country with these nationwide injunctions, not just the Plantiff before him. The Supreme Court has been silent on whether that is permitted under Article III because these actions only became frequent since Obama (when right-leaning judges used them to stop DACA). Both parties have shopped for sympathetic judges to issue TROs and nationwide injunctions against things they did not like, but the practice has exploded since Trump took office.
This won’t be fixed by impeaching one judge because some fraction of the other 676 will be happy to do the next one.
It needs to go to SCOTUS where one ruling could put an end to it, much as the court did with regard to immunity.
If Trump said he was going to ignore the district court judges they would just issue restraining orders against whichever underling was directed to carry out his orders and put them in legal limbo. Bottom line his best bet is to make these rogue judges an insufferable burden to the SCOTUS until Amy Coney Barret gives Roberts his balls back and he starts slapping them down with two word orders - Stop it.
Also might not be a bad idea to see what the FBI dug up on them during their confirmation hearings and how much richer they are now than when they were confirmed. Boasberg is a particularly slimy swamp critter who signed off on bugging Trump Tower when he was on the FISA court.
Can DoJ force the “tort bond” on the court such that no TRO will be considered valid unless the \required\ bond be submitted with the defendants’ request for action?
The standard for judges isn’t high crimes but “good behavior”
My guess would be Yes.
Informative, educational thread. Thanks to every poster. Thanks for the info/link Trot.
Okay. Conservative politicians-Senate and House should start a huge private fund to first purchase thousands of billboard ads to have pictures of liberal judges and print the illegal connections to fraud committed, with family connections. SHAME them!
NEXT, at each election of liberal politicians, spend a lot of money to get them tossed and back a certified MAGA candidate.
Well then we are completely screwed and America is completely over.
We are completely screwed.
Congress has power over the lower courts to reorganize, add judges and perhaps abolish, although PJ thinks that the modern Supreme Court might rein that in.
Who would ever have thought it was this easy? Just judge shop until you find a radical marxist judge, then they give the radical marxist democrats everything they want, even when they’ve been creamed in an election?
Our three co-equal branches mean nothing if this is the way it’s going to be. Nothing works and everything breaks down if this isn’t turned around and quickly. This makes our govt illegitimate to it’s core and the people should never have to obey an illegitimate judiciary.
Researchers going through the archives of the Federal Marshals Service found a memo from 1935 from FDR concerning the Gold Clause cases then before the Supreme Court. The memo informed the marshals that they might soon receive an order from the president to ignore a Supreme Court decision. Had the Court decided against the administration, it would have ended the nationalization of America's gold and stopped the New Deal.
FDR made sure the memo was leaked to Chief Justice Hughes. Charles Evans Hughes had once been governor of New York and the Republican opponent of Wilson in 1916. He understood politics and understood that with FDR's party in charge of Congress by large majorities, FDR had the political capital necessary to destroy the Court as an institution. By convoluted legal reasoning, he gave FDR what he wanted in order to preserve the Court.
Just a little something from the past.
It’s over. We are all doomed. We will live in gulags.
So you are telling me there is no hope whatsoever.
Perhaps the public’s Overton Window needs to be adjusted first to make it politically palatable to the masses?
More like United States vs. District Judges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.