What 1948 SC decision?
I’m not aware of a 1948 court decision.
I am aware of Mississippi v Johnson (1867) in which the Supreme Court made it explicitly clear that the Judicial Branch had no say in how the Executive Branch chose to carry out its duties.
I think we are pretty much at the point where Trump should announce that no court has any power over his Branch. And I think that includes the Supremes. Roberts? He’s a nobody.
Obama ‘judges’ feel their job is to keep the freely elected President in a box. Maybe the ‘judges’ can go out and burn down Mar a largo - or Trum’s Tesla. They are one with the mob.
Perhaps a few more such judges need to expose themselves in order for the president to prove a conspiracy.
Because the Congress established the district courts as allowed in the constitution and only Congress can disband it. However a sharply worded letter from Jordan and Grassley telling them they have exceeded their authority and are in danger of having the DC District dissolved unless they get back in their lane.
And Roberts has stepped out of his lane as well. There is nothing in the constitution that says judges can’t be impeached except for high crimes and misdemeanors. It says they can be removed. PERIOD.
Don’t hang your hat on rescue by the SCOTUS.
He is talking about the SCOTUS ruling in 1948 that said that the 1798 Alien Act is “not justiciable” - that judges had “neither the expertise nor the authority” to decide such national security matters, and that only the president can make such decisions. Boasberg has ZERO jurisdiction in this case, and the DOJ needs to just state this already, outright.
Impeaching those wayward judges isn’t even on my radar screen, seeing as how it’s next to impossible.
I see this a great time to use the bully pulpit to point out, clearly and succinctly, the courts have no role in the executive branch.
I have stated before and I will state it again: I believe this administration’s biggest mistake so far was making the statement” I will obey the rulings of the Court”. Since then there has been a pile on of rulings.
Even if the supreme Court were to overturn them, there were only so many cases they can take during a session.
The president needs to move full steam ahead. Ignore the rulings where they do not have jurisdiction and demand that Congress begin to call out these jurists by name.
They don’t have to impeach. They can just pull funding.
One thing simple majorities in Congress can do is defund the ba$tards.
What 1948 Supreme Court decision and what was the stated constitutional basis for the opinion?
Whenever Dems go judge shopping in a deep blue area and get some low level leftist District judge to issue a sweeping ruling against the Trump Administration that s/he applies to the whole country, why don't Republicans respond by judge shopping a conservative judge in some deep red area, to issue a countermanding order? Then Trump can decide which of these low-level judges he's going to heed.
"Let's see, which low level District Judge am I going to listen to? One from Massachusetts or one from Oklahoma? Hmm, I can't decide. LOL!"
Just keep this up til John Roberts gets disgusted with this Judicial Circus that is embarrassing the entire US judicial system from SCOTUS on down and he's forced to do something about it.
You can’t hate these people enough. I’d bet a donut that these judges are tied in some way to USAID.
Marbury ruled that the courts must stay out of the execution of the President's discretionary powers:
§ 76 offers the only exception: If Congress passes laws regarding individual rights, the President cannot issues orders that violate those rights.
74
By the constitution of the United States, the president is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.75
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of congress for establishing the department of foreign affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the president. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the courts.76
But when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.77
The conclusion from this reasoning is, that where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the executive, merely to execute the will of the president, or rather to act in cases in which the executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.99
It is scarcely necessary for the court to disclaim all pretensions to such a jurisdiction. An extravagance, so absurd and excessive, could not have been entertained for a moment. The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.
However, SCOTUS ruled in Marbury in § 142-143 that laws meant to constrain the President must not impede on his Constitutional powers.
128
To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction.129
It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that if it be the will of the legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose, that will must be obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.131
The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised.135
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.136
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.137
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.140
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.141
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.142
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.143
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
-PJ
He has to inform them either they back off or he can eliminate the district courts altogether.
They have no authority and they know it.
In the meantime, DJT and the DOJ should initiate some pardonfare on these judges by having DJT pardon or commute any victims who’ve been convicted as guilty in their courts. (Except for real criminals of course)
DOJ can also start to drop cases that are being handled by these judges if warranted
It’s a great way to make them irrelevant and also another nail in the coffin of “justice”
“Why can’t the Trump administration basically inform these courts - by a nationwide press conference/speech, by a letter...”
I think this is the main part of your question and it is explainable. The courts are there for law interpretation. However, they have no enforcement capacity based upon their purpose which is to decide the validity of law. If this wasn’t the case, then the judicial branch of the government would have more power than the POTUS as judge, jury, and executioner. It’s checks and balance, not over run. This is why the DOJ has such a wide margin for decision to carry out the laws as interpreted. Could that judge physically stop the flights? Not in his wheelhouse.
wy69
If Trump does something strong-armed, a future dem president can do it also. We’ve already seen Joe ignore the court with student loan forgiveness.
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.
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.