[veracious]

It seems like SCOTUS may have _original_ jurisdiction over the recent, Federal judge ruling, stopping Trump's immigration change.

Wasn't this case Washington State VS US (executive) government. If so, can any lawyers, including DOJ, read and follow US law?

[lee martell]

I’ll wait for the ‘translation’ into everyday English.

[Williams]

You figured it out. But how to tell Trump?

[Family Guy]

Wow Veracious, that's really brilliant. The lower court doesn't have the authority to rule on a case where a state is a party. Excellent work. Are you a lawyer?

[stylin19a]

It would seem so.
But it seems to me, that the DOJ should first argue the state has no standing ? maybe Arizona v. United States ?

[anton]

The jurisdiction of federal district courts on matter of the Constitutionality of the President’s actions can be revoked by Congress. And, should be.

[lakecumberlandvet]

What’s most dangerous about this whole kerfuffle is that it shows that the Executive branch can be stymied in every action it takes that liberal judges in the Judicial branch do not agree with. The Executive branch, in concert with the Legislative branch, needs to rein in the Judicial branch, post haste, or nothing worthwhile will get done. The sooner the Judicial branch is put in its place the better off we’ll be. One immediate solution is to ignore lawless, unconstitutional rulings of the toothless Judicial branch in matters where the Executive and Legislative branches are in agreement.