“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.”
Good.
Is there a statute that says courts havew nationwide jurisdiction? Why not just ignore it?
Barr has been turning the wheels to make this happen. The idea that one STATE COURT can rule for all States is absurd.
Now it just needs to get through the House and matched with a similar Senate bill, thence to The Donald’s desk
Doubt this would get through he democrat controlled House, but try it.
Right arm! Right arm!
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, they’re out, done being a judge, anywhere.
This should be addressed by SCOTUS. There is no Constitutional warrant for inferior courts to enjoin the whole country.
I’m sick of these traitorous commie judges.
The House needs to revert to GOP control next year or everything DJT proposes will be stonewalled.
Don’t need a bill, just need the Supreme Court to end it... Not against the bill, but the Supreme Court itself should have shut this crap down when it started 50 years ago.
There certainly seems to be an imbalance of power with the power in favor of the judiciary. Any single, lower level judge can overrule a decision by the POTUS. There are hundreds of lower level judges each with their own political preferences.
These rulings all should have been ignored. These districts courts do not have authority over the entire country. No law is needed, ignore their rulings. Proposing legislation only works to give the appearance that these rulings are legitimate, they aren’t.
"An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction." Wikipedia
Since when should a pipsqueak of a Judge have so much power? He should be charged with abuse of authority and over-reaching.
As a practical matter, the U.S. Supreme Court did this yesterday.
——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-—
I hought the supreme court already ruled that district courts couldn’t order nationwide injunctions
‘This bill will restore respect for the system of government outlined in the Constitution’
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.
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.