Posted on 05/09/2019 7:55:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Vice President Pence on Wednesday announced that the administration will challenge the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that halt policies advocated by President Trump.
The administration's move — aimed at pushing back at unfavorable decisions from lower courts across the country — would set the stage for a vast legal debate and battle over the role that national injunctions play in the courts.
Pence argued to supporters at an event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society that the Trump administration has been “unfairly” targeted by injunctions issued by lower courts, saying the rulings have prevented officials from implementing policies and regulations.
The vice president said that in the coming days, administration officials will seek pathways to put the issue before the Supreme Court.
“So I say to all those gathered here: For the sake of our liberty, our security, our prosperity and the separation of powers, this era of judicial activism must come to an end,” Pence said. “The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them.”
“It’s remarkable to think a Supreme Court justice has to convince four of their colleagues to uphold an injunction, but a single district court judge can issue one, effectively preventing the duly elected president of the United States from fulfilling what he believes is a constitutional duty,” Pence said.
“This obstruction at the district level is unprecedented,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Finally...
Justice Thomas has already said District judges should only rule in their District.
Here are some of the activist judges’ decisions :
1) Travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries
2) A ban on transgender service members in the military
3) Denying funding to sanctuary cities that won’t cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration law.
4) Tightening the asylum process for illegal immigrants.
Many of the lawsuits were filed in district courts that put the cases on track to be heard in the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, because such ruling invites unvarnished judge-shopping.
The next one yet to be decided is whether or not Trump has the authority to use federal funds to build a border wall.
The average annual number of nationwide injunctions against the administrations of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was 1.5. That increased to 2.5 under Barack Obama.
In Trump’s first year in office, however, judges issued 20 nationwide injunctions against administration policy.
That number now stands at 30.
Here are some of the activist judges’ decisions :
1) Travel ban for several Muslim-majority countries
2) A ban on transgender service members in the military
3) Denying funding to sanctuary cities that won’t cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration law.
4) Tightening the asylum process for illegal immigrants.
Many of the lawsuits were filed in district courts that put the cases on track to be heard in the liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, because such ruling invites unvarnished judge-shopping.
The next one yet to be decided is whether or not Trump has the authority to use federal funds to build a border wall.
The average annual number of nationwide injunctions against the administrations of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was 1.5. That increased to 2.5 under Barack Obama.
In Trump’s first year in office, however, judges issued 20 nationwide injunctions against administration policy.
That number now stands at 30.
How is it that any federal judge can tell the co-equal president that he cannot do something?
Can the president tell any federal judge that he, she or it cannot do something?
Nope.
So it seems the Judicial Branch is quite a bit MORE co-equal than the Executive Branch.
RE: Justice Thomas has already said District judges should only rule in their District.
Well, the LIBERAL and ACTIVIST 9th District Circuit covers CALIFORNIA and ARIZONA, two border states. If they rule on their district against say a border wall, how does Justice Thomas’ opinion apply?
” If they rule on their district against say a border wall, how does Justice Thomas’ opinion apply?”
It will apply when it goes to SCOTUS for a ruling.
You left out the injunction against asking about citizenship on the census.
THIS needs to be fixed. It probably never will.
Excellent. This is fighting the fire by aiming at the base.
Finally...
+++++
Yes, finally.
About time someone lit a good backfire against this judicial overreach.
The administration has done a great deal of damage by failing to dismiss these asinine decisions as the vast and purely political nonsense that they are.
Sorry but why even give them the time of day. Every branch has self over sight, except the judiciary. Only thing congress can do is impeach. Not to mention they have no i force,want authority. Personally piss on them
The way to get this to the Supreme Court is to announce that the president will not recognize a nation-wade injunction from a federal district judge. Or, he could ignore a nation-wide injunction in a ridiculous case from a ridiculous judge as a test case. Either way it would eventually get to the Supreme Court.
These nationwide injunctions by regional courts are absurd and should have been defied as appeals would go up to the USSC.
If these stand then in another year state courts will be issuing “national” injunctions which, if properly leftist, will also stand. Once you normalize stepping outside the Constitution anything then goes.
Let’s remember that the “Impeach ‘45” lynch mob WANTS President Trump to “break the law” and that ANY “law” or ANY judge’s injunction which the President does not follow to a “T” will “trigger” those fools.
True - but these 'ruling' have no constitutional authority. Even the Supreme Court deciding what is constitutional has not constitutional authority and the SC did not make the attempt until 40-50 years (iirc) after the US Govt was formed.
Congress and the Executive should have shut them down right then but it was easier to be 'political'.
The courts have no way to enforce their rulings. And they have been ignored before, notably by Obunghole.
The best way to deal with the demented left is to punch them right in the face. Especially since there is plenty of precedent.
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.