Skip to comments.
Republican Lawmakers Introduce Bill to End Nationwide Legal Injunctions
freebeacon ^
| SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
| Graham Piro
Posted on 09/12/2019 10:54:52 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
To: PapaBear3625
Im just a Bill, just an ordinary Bill, asking...
Injunction junction, what's your function...
21
posted on
09/12/2019 11:15:32 AM PDT
by
Magnum44
(My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them.)
To: MarvinStinson
As a practical matter, the U.S. Supreme Court did this yesterday.
To: Magnum44
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I'll say that he's gay.
23
posted on
09/12/2019 11:16:47 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: dhs12345
After our forefathers had set the parameters for the USSC to be included in the Constitution, they noted that the Court had absolutely no check.
To: Fireone
A better approach, IMO, would be to hold judges, whose rulings are overturned, to much tighter scrutiny, and level hefty penalties for abuse. At minimum, a three strikes rule, where if overturned 3 times by a higher court, theyre out, done being a judge, anywhere. Great ideas!
25
posted on
09/12/2019 11:17:29 AM PDT
by
Rapscallion
(If they are not for Trump, they are against him. Fire them.)
To: Rapscallion
Another suggest for legislation would make it mandatory that nationwide injunctions be given in person to the Senate Judiciary committee who then get to ask questions of the judge. The committee gets the authority to grant a stay until SCOTUS rules on the merits.
26
posted on
09/12/2019 11:31:39 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: MarvinStinson
——to bad somebody didn’t think of doing this when the Repubs had control of the House-—it could have passed easily then-—
-—now it is pointless posturing-—
27
posted on
09/12/2019 11:33:56 AM PDT
by
rellimpank
(--don't believe anything the meda or government sayabout firearms or explosives--)
To: MarvinStinson
A district court in California should not be given sweeping authority to issue a rulinglet alone on dubious legal reasoningstriking down policy from a duly elected President.These appointed "legal maniacs" think they are important don't cha know??
28
posted on
09/12/2019 11:37:09 AM PDT
by
pfflier
To: Dr. Zzyzx
but their legal authority extends only within the confines of the judicial circuit they serve.
29
posted on
09/12/2019 11:38:39 AM PDT
by
txnativegop
(The political left, Mankinds intellectual hemlock)
To: MarvinStinson
I hought the supreme court already ruled that district courts couldn’t order nationwide injunctions
To: precisionshootist
These rulings all should have been ignored.That is the bottom line. Leave it to the stupid repulicans to go here when they well know this will go no where. Show vote.
31
posted on
09/12/2019 11:42:22 AM PDT
by
BlackbirdSST
(Is it time Claire?)
To: Sacajaweau
Agreed. Maybe by design. Members of our courts are supposed to represent the elite of our society. The well educated, etc.
However, these lower court judges are not the USSC. They are beneath the level of the USSC and, more importantly, the POTUS. And the lower court judge’s jurisdiction should be limited to the regions that which they oversee.
It is as if one of one of the president’s cabinet members overrules Congress. The “cabinet member” is an underling and not equal to congress. Only the president, equal to the USSC, and Congress has a vote at that level.
32
posted on
09/12/2019 11:42:29 AM PDT
by
dhs12345
To: MarvinStinson
This is not needed. What’s needed is for the Supreme Court to end this madness.
To: FredZarguna
To: MarvinStinson
‘This bill will restore respect for the system of government outlined in the Constitution’
That would also be the case if the government itself didn’t trample on the Constitution to the detriment of the very people whose rights it was created to protect.
Oh, and it would also be the case if high officials, elected, apppointed or promoted from within the bureaucracy, were subject to the same laws - and actually prosecuted when there is a clear case to be made of a possible violation thereof - instead of making it look abundantly clear that there are two standards of justice in our society.
Other than that, I’m certainly in favor of this bill. Unelected judges on the lowest federal level do not have the Constitutional authority to exercise their power outside of their own court’s jurisdiction. Any first year law student could tell you that.
35
posted on
09/12/2019 11:51:41 AM PDT
by
Ancesthntr
("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
To: Sacajaweau
“he idea that one STATE COURT can rule for all States is absurd.”
These are federal District Courts that operate within particular states. They are not state-level courts.
36
posted on
09/12/2019 11:52:54 AM PDT
by
Ancesthntr
("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
To: Fireone
> if overturned 3 times by a higher court, theyre out, done being a judge, anywhere.
Require an impeachment vote in the House - no voice votes allowed.
37
posted on
09/12/2019 11:56:41 AM PDT
by
glorgau
To: nikos1121
The Supreme Court does not control or define what the lower or "inferior" courts can do. That falls upon Congress under Article III, Section 1, vis. The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. [emphasis added]. So yes, a bill is necessary.
38
posted on
09/12/2019 11:56:58 AM PDT
by
NonValueAdded
("Sorry, your race card has been declined. Can you present any other form of argument?")
To: MarvinStinson
The House Democrats need to be reminded that Trump is appointing so many conservative judges that, if in the future roles are reversed, they would be glad they voted yes on this bill.
39
posted on
09/12/2019 11:59:45 AM PDT
by
Rusty0604
(2020 four more years!)
To: brianr10
I dont think there is. Clarence Thomas has spoken on this also.
40
posted on
09/12/2019 12:01:24 PM PDT
by
Rusty0604
(2020 four more years!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-53 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson