[ransomnote]

"At least one Supreme Court justice has focused on the forum-shopping concern.  Justice Gorsuch wrote in his recent concurrence in the DHS v. New York case, that “[b]ecause plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.”  If one plaintiff loses, another can try his luck.  Yet, if the government loses once, the enforcement of a law is brought to a screeching halt nationwide.  Plaintiffs therefore have virtually unlimited bites at the apple, but the government must run the table to prevail, at least unless – and until – the Supreme Court addresses the case." 

[Rocky]

This abuse of the judicial system must stop. I hope they find a way to do that.

[Pete Dovgan]

Federal Judges need skin in the game.

You put out a nation wide injuction, as a Federal judge, and you are decided against at the SCOTUS level or higher level because it was Constitutional. YOU LOOSE YOUR JOB AND YOUR PENSION.

These Judges have to know the Constitution. They have the ability to get other Judges opinion. So, if they want to stick their neck out on things THAT ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INCORRECT, then they should no have jobs or pensions.

PS: Make it a federal felony for them to accept money, book deals, or jobs from people after they loose their federal job. No payoffs.