Posted on 04/01/2025 12:38:02 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and his unmatched ability to dismantle weak arguments with his signature Southern wit. On Monday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he was at the top of his game, systematically exposing the complete lack of legal authority for district judges to issue universal injunctions — a favorite tactic of the left to block Trump’s agenda.
Questioning Assistant Attorney General nominee Brett Shumate, Kennedy systematically dismantled any justification for these sweeping judicial orders.
"Mr. Shumate, what's a universal injunction?" Kennedy asked.
Shumate explained, "Senator, a universal injunction is an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case but applies nationwide or in some cases universally."
Kennedy pressed further, asking, "What's the statutory basis for a federal judge issuing an order that affects people other than the parties before the court?"
"I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator," Shumate admitted.
"There is no statutory basis, is there?" Kennedy reiterated.
"No, Senator," Shumate confirmed.
Kennedy then challenged Shumate to name a Supreme Court ruling that interprets the Constitution to allow such injunctions.
"Can you name me that case?" he asked.
"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate responded.
"There isn't one, is there?" Kennedy pressed.
"I'm not aware of one, Senator," Shumate repeated.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
A bit more follows...
"It shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time," Shumate admitted. "I think on the theory that courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it nationwide so that all non-parties are protected."
"I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action," Kennedy countered.
"That's correct, Senator," Shumate agreed.
Kennedy pointed out that instead of filing class actions, plaintiffs often seek universal injunctions, which have no legal foundation.
"Does this encourage forum shopping?" he asked.
"Yes, Senator. Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge who will enjoin a single policy nationwide," Shumate said. "If you have five lawsuits, only one of those cases needs to be successful."
Kennedy then points out that judges issued only about 27 universal injunctions in the entire 20th century.
"But 86 of them were issued against President Trump in his first term. Is that correct?" Kennedy asked.
"I don't know the specific number, but it was a high number," Shumate conceded.
"And so far in President Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. Have they not?" Kennedy continued.
"Senator, I don't have the specific number, but that sounds about right," Shumate said.
"The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not?" Kennedy asked.
"Yes," Shumate affirmed.
He says a lot, Kennedy. It’s often interesting sometimes amusing. Does he do anything?
For your comment…
Bump
Ok another great oral argument expressed. But these injunctions stay active and Trump’s and our agenda remain hobbled. Do something
“He says a lot, Kennedy. It’s often interesting sometimes amusing. Does he do anything?”
The answer is no. He’s fun to watch but he’s a typical moderate. Trey Gowdy was that way too.
No. They all like to talk.
Kennedy’s role is seminal. You will notice that if he is talking about something, it won’t be long before the wheels are rolling in the direction of a passable bill.
THIS is the heart of the issue! Trump needs to get this to SCOTUS where it will be stopped.
Grassley has introduced a bill to restrict district judges
“ Kennedy’s role is seminal. You will notice that if he is talking about something, it won’t be long before the wheels are rolling in the direction of a passable bill.”
That’s what I was wondering
Ok that’s acceptable. I think that’s correct
Johnson did not eviscerate Shumate.
Johnson was preaching to the choir. Shumate agreed with and supported Johnson’s well placed diatribe. Johnson was simply reading his discourse into the congressional record.
Had this been a Biden nomineee arguing with Johnson then the breathless headlines would be merited.
Johnson didn’t destroy nationwide injunctions. That would require legislation to be passed. This is just jawboning.
Brett Shumate is a Trump nominee. He is not lobbying for nationwide injunctions.
“He says a lot, Kennedy. It’s often interesting sometimes amusing. Does he do anything?”
He’s just our mascot, Festus Haggen reincarnated. Much like Barbie Bondi, speaks nice words but is ineffective. An entertainer.
Understand that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and his “aw shucks” shtick is theater. Vanderbilt University, University of Virginia School of Law, Oxford University. (Someone here said that he was so wealthy that “even his butler had a butler”.)
He wasn’t trying to eviscerate Shumate. He was using him to make a point about what’s been going on. Shumate is Trump’s nominee
No shit.
I’m wondering when some people on the right start camping out in front of a judges home and make THEIR lives miserable 24/7 like the freaks do to conservatives?
Or the solution described in the Tom Kratman book, Caliphate.
Kennedy eviscerated the policy,. My interpretation was that the candidate also opposed this goofy lawfare.
Jim Jordan, too. Brilliant mind, excellent interlocutor in hearings...but what happens? NOTHING.
IOW, is it time yet to show this judge and the judicial branch, and CJ Roberts, who endorsed J. Boasberg... the respect they have shown the executive branch?
By ignoring them?
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.