Posted on 12/29/2022 6:06:47 AM PST by kiryandil
Rep. Mondaire Jones criticized GOP-appointed judges' abilities to issue nationwide injunctions.
He referred to a Trump-appointed judge blocking student-debt relief for millions of Americans.
His new bill would channel that authority to D.C. courts and the Supreme Court only.
A Democratic lawmaker doesn't think conservative judges should have the power to halt Democratic policies for millions of Americans.
Last week, New York Rep. Mondaire Jones penned an opinion piece criticizing Republican-appointed judges' "unrestrained use of nationwide injunctions" to block Democratic policies. For example, federal Texas Judge Mark Pittman — appointed by former President Donald Trump — ruled President Joe Biden's plan to cancel student debt illegal in November, blocking the relief from reaching millions of Americans until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling on the policy's legality.
Jones said Pittman should not have had that power.
"Although the Biden administration has appealed this ruling, its long-overdue student debt relief program will now, at a minimum, be stalled for many months," Jones wrote. "This begs an important question: How can a lone Trump-appointed judge in Texas, through a single opinion, overturn the Biden administration's meticulously planned executive order in all 50 states?"
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
The effing Hawaii judge shut down everything Trump did for 4 years!
Rich. They don’t like when thier own playback is used against them.
LOL!!! Maybe they can- wait for it now- hook up!!!
Yes - only Clinton, Obama and JoeTatoe “judges” should be able to do this.
We feel the same way every time the Demoncraps pull it off.
“His new bill would channel that authority to D.C. courts and the Supreme Court only.”
This is what are system is designed to stop. The ability of a group of people to completely independently control our laws based upon any decision any time not made by the people is totally the opposite of the Constitution and its allowance of power to the states. What they are saying is that the court systems are the apparent only form of checks and balance until it gets to them and the ability to separate applying justice and making laws from the bench of whatever level the government decides to call end of track will be the final determination of every thing there is at their discretion.
We at that point will have a ruling faction of unelected and all powerful people running the country in whatever their interests are and not those of the citizens. At that point, we are Russia, China, North Korea, and any other country that lacks the freedom of democracy. We will become an authoritarian country.
Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack civil liberties such as freedom of religion, speech, or countries in which the government and the opposition do not alternate in power. And all we have gained since 1783 will be destroyed. And we will be our own worst enemy.
wy69
“His new bill would channel that authority to D.C. courts and the Supreme Court only.”
This is what are system is designed to stop. The ability of a group of people to completely independently control our laws based upon any decision any time not made by the people is totally the opposite of the Constitution and its allowance of power to the states. What they are saying is that the court systems are the apparent only form of checks and balance until it gets to them and the ability to separate applying justice and making laws from the bench of whatever level the government decides to call end of track will be the final determination of every thing there is at their discretion.
We at that point will have a ruling faction of unelected and all powerful people running the country in whatever their interests are and not those of the citizens. At that point, we are Russia, China, North Korea, and any other country that lacks the freedom of democracy. We will become an authoritarian country.
Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack civil liberties such as freedom of religion, speech, or countries in which the government and the opposition do not alternate in power. And all we have gained since 1783 will be destroyed. And we will be our own worst enemy.
wy69
“They don’t have a problem when some Obama or Biden judge does it.”
Correct! I remember when Trump entered office, it was shortly thereafter that I recall several nationwide injunctions from lefty judges on Trump policies.
I also recall Clarence Thomas saying that they may need to revisit the constitutionality of judges issuing injunctoins that span beyond their court’s jurisdiction.
It’s the US Constitution that stops it.
It's OK when THEY do it...
Goal is to destroy any sense of responsibility and forge allegiance to a party in the government
This is the Obama plan followed by the creation of two classes. The feudal lords of Washington DC and the selected members of their Court
The rest of the population taxed to the whims of the lords
The past relived while the uneducated fall for the ruse of fake enemies they must be protected from
History repeats itself
“says a Democratic lawmaker introducing a bill to stop it from happening again”
So the bill would require CONGRESS to vote on things like student loan forgiveness? Beyond that, it would mean that in another term, Trump could order as he pleases?
Probably should have checked with his Democrat friends first.
“Why don’t we just split into two nations.”
We already have, just haven’t put it to paper yet.
A congressional bill— to STOP a Constitutional function of the Judiciary Branch. That is a novel idea. And these a@@clown dems have no problem shopping for a dem judge to rubber stamp their illegalities.
A country ruled by judges, not proper electorate is a totalitarian dictatorship— the judges work for the dictator. Nuremburg Laws come to mind.
They are not democratic law makers. They are Democrat law makers.
Democrats are anything but democratic.
‘A lone Soros.-appointed judge in America should not have the ability to block ,,, wait,,,
Would that judge be making a ruling based on the Constitution? Maybe his problem is with the Constitution.
You morons signed a contract. Now pay up!
By the same logic then a democrat judge shouldn’t be able to force the rest of us into communism
If they ain’t helping pay my mortgage, I ain’t helping pay their tuition.
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.