Clarence Thomas v District Judges

[theblether]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known to be against district court judges issuing national injunctions or stopping government policies from being enacted. The argument boils down to: 

 

Presidents are not Kings. District judges are not Presidents. 

 

The solution is for District judges to rule and at most, rule to ban government policy being enacted in their circuit. 

 

That ruling should then be expedited to an en banc hearing of that circuits appeal court who would have the power to issue a national injunction. 

 

You would need to go en banc as all appeal court judges on that circuit would need to hear a case of national importance. 

 

The Judiciary is required to reign in the executive, no one argues against that. But with the modern temptation to go shopping for activist judges the spirit of oversight is being undone. 

 

Before the Dems on the forum go nuts, this also applies to right wing judges harassing Democrat Presidencies.  

 

Governments must be allowed to function. The Judiciary must have oversight. But partisans from both sides should not be allowed to run riot. 

 

[theblether]

Last week's order re USAID is not what the Dems think it is. It boils down to two things. 

 

Do workers on mandatory leave overseas have access to emergency safety notices. 

 

And, is it fair to require 30 day repatriation when the normal notice period is six months plus. 

 

The repairs the judge is looking for is for the government to guarantee overseas staff are not endangered by not having access to their works e-mails. 

 

Also, that the government is prepared to grant exceptions to the 30 day repatriation demand if it causes undue hardship. For example, dependent kids losing out on education or missing essential exams. 

 

Both are fair issues.

[theblether]

The Treasury issue is more arcane. The judge is assuming that D.O.G.E. employees are looking at individuals details. 

 

D.O.G.E are saying that they are looking at systems, not individuals. Also saying that Treasury staff are in control of day-to-day operations. 

 

D.O.G.E. are likely to win this particular confrontation. 

[impulse]

To me, the question is whether a minor, low level judge in Fish Shack Arkansas should have the power to overrule the elected President of the USA on a national issue.

 

My answer is, no.  You can find a low level judge that agrees to almost anything if you venue shop hard enough.  Then the President's options are to defy the judge while waiting for the ruling to be appealed, or to knuckle under. 

 

Trump's taking the right course.  Carry on with the rat killing while the questionable decisions are fought on the appeals ladder.  He's only got 3.9 years left to fix decades of rot.

 

Edit:  If he really wanted labial liberal heads to explode, he'd pre-emptively pardon Musk, Big Balls, and the rest of the DOGE team.

 

[LosLobo]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

To me, the question is whether a minor, low level judge in Fish Shack Arkansas should have the power to overrule the elected President of the USA on a national issue.

 

The answer is, no.

 

The answer is, yes!

Federal judges have jurisdiction over matters that fall under federal law, regardless of their location.

[impulse]

28 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

The answer is, yes!

Federal judges have jurisdiction over matters that fall under federal law, regardless of their location.

 

Not as simple as that.  They call them District Judges for a reason.  

 

It's in the OP.  And they probably have entire semester long classes on the topic in law school.

 

 

 

[LosLobo]

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Not as simple as that.  They call them District Judges for a reason.  

 

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, theblether said:

Last week's order re USAID is not what the Dems think it is. It boils down to two things. 

 

Do workers on mandatory leave overseas have access to emergency safety notices. 

 

And, is it fair to require 30 day repatriation when the normal notice period is six months plus. 

 

The repairs the judge is looking for is for the government to guarantee overseas staff are not endangered by not having access to their works e-mails. 

 

Also, that the government is prepared to grant exceptions to the 30 day repatriation demand if it causes undue hardship. For example, dependent kids losing out on education or missing essential exams. 

 

Both are fair issues.

You might want to check the contents of what you're boiling in that pot. 

"The lawsuit argues that the president is violating the US Constitution and federal law by attempting to dismantle the agency. "Not a single one of defendants' actions to dismantle USAID were taken pursuant to congressional authorization," it says.

"And pursuant to federal statute, Congress is the only entity that may lawfully dismantle the agency.""

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y6701gl60o

[riclag]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

To me, the question is whether a minor, low level judge in Fish Shack Arkansas should have the power to overrule the elected President of the USA on a national issue.

 

My answer is, no.  You can find a low level judge that agrees to almost anything if you venue shop hard enough.  Then the President's options are to defy the judge while waiting for the ruling to be appealed, or to knuckle under. 

 

Trump's taking the right course.  Carry on with the rat killing while the questionable decisions are fought on the appeals ladder.  He's only got 3.9 years left to fix decades of rot.

 

Edit:  If he really wanted labial liberal heads to explode, he'd pre-emptively pardon Musk, Big Balls, and the rest of the DOGE team.

 

I love your sarcasm!
 

Im Patiently waiting for Trumps Wingperson to commandeer Comey& Wrays post .

It will be interesting , full leadership control of it all.

WH

Senate

House of Reps

Scotus

DoJ

FBi

Cia

Dod

Treasury

 

 

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

 

Or, I could follow Clarence Thomas on the topic.  That way, I could hear about 250+ years of precedents, in up to date English.

 

We've already had a discussion about how W dismantled a bunch of agencies after 9/11.  But venue shopping wasn't as much of a lefty thing back then.  The old Dem party realized that what comes around, goes around.  That's before they went off the rails.

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, theblether said:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is known to be against district court judges issuing national injunctions or stopping government policies from being enacted. The argument boils down to: 

 

Presidents are not Kings. District judges are not Presidents. 

 

The solution is for District judges to rule and at most, rule to ban government policy being enacted in their circuit. 

 

That ruling should then be expedited to an en banc hearing of that circuits appeal court who would have the power to issue a national injunction. 

 

You would need to go en banc as all appeal court judges on that circuit would need to hear a case of national importance. 

 

The Judiciary is required to reign in the executive, no one argues against that. But with the modern temptation to go shopping for activist judges the spirit of oversight is being undone. 

 

Before the Dems on the forum go nuts, this also applies to right wing judges harassing Democrat Presidencies.  

 

Governments must be allowed to function. The Judiciary must have oversight. But partisans from both sides should not be allowed to run riot. 

 

I've been searching for a link to your claim that Justice Thomas believes that district court judges have too much power. Where has he said that? In a decision? In a speech? In some writing?

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

To me, the question is whether a minor, low level judge in Fish Shack Arkansas should have the power to overrule the elected President of the USA on a national issue.

 

My answer is, no.  You can find a low level judge that agrees to almost anything if you venue shop hard enough.  Then the President's options are to defy the judge while waiting for the ruling to be appealed, or to knuckle under. 

 

Trump's taking the right course.  Carry on with the rat killing while the questionable decisions are fought on the appeals ladder.  He's only got 3.9 years left to fix decades of rot.

 

Edit:  If he really wanted labial liberal heads to explode, he'd pre-emptively pardon Musk, Big Balls, and the rest of the DOGE team.

 

While I don't have much use for Liz Cheney, I have to concede that she's got this one right:

“If you believe any of the multiple federal courts that have ruled against you so far are exceeding their statutory or Constitutional authority, your recourse is to appeal. You don’t get to rage-quit the Republic just because you are losing. That’s tyranny.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/jd-vance-claims-judges-arent-allowed-to-overrule-president-trump-on-executive-orders-suggests-potus-has-legitimate-power-to-defy-judicial-rulings/

[theblether]

22 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

 

It's not that simple. They are allocated to a court circuit. They are not allocated national power to override Presidents. 

 

And it won't be the first time that circuit appeal courts have disagreed on issues. 

 

This needs to come to SCOTUS for clarification to the benefit of Democrats and Republican Presidents. 

[riclag]

8 hours ago, theblether said:

The Treasury issue is more arcane. The judge is assuming that D.O.G.E. employees are looking at individuals details. 

 

D.O.G.E are saying that they are looking at systems, not individuals. Also saying that Treasury staff are in control of day-to-day operations. 

 

D.O.G.E. are likely to win this particular confrontation. 

Arcane you say!

In early 2024 millions of people were caught up in the National Public Database hack.The rub: Nobody in the world was held accountable.

https://www.alvareztg.com/national-public-data-hack-of-2024-what-we-know/

And then this  report in Dec 2024.Chinese hacked into the Treasury Database!

 

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/01/03/chinese-linked-hackers-accused-of-infiltrating-u-s-treasury-department/ 

 

 

[theblether]

30 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

 

Article III 

 

The Supreme Court has the power to declare on constitutional issues. District judges are subordinate. 

 

• The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the actions of the president and lawmakers, and declare them unconstitutional.

[theblether]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

Arcane you say!

In early 2024 millions of people were caught up in the National Public Database hack.The rub: Nobody in the world was held accountable.

https://www.alvareztg.com/national-public-data-hack-of-2024-what-we-know/

And then this  report in Dec 2024.Chinese hacked into the Treasury Database!

 

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/01/03/chinese-linked-hackers-accused-of-infiltrating-u-s-treasury-department/ 

 

 

 

I was referring to the ruling which looks certain to fail. 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

It's not that simple. They are allocated to a court circuit. They are not allocated national power to override Presidents. 

 

And it won't be the first time that circuit appeal courts have disagreed on issues. 

 

This needs to come to SCOTUS for clarification to the benefit of Democrats and Republican Presidents. 

SCOTUS is irretrievably corrupted by Trump stacking it with conservative judges in his last term. The overturning of Roe vs Wade plus the ruling on Presidential immunity destroyed its credibility.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

If you want to learn about political court/judge shopping that occurs in federal courts, some of the worst abuses of that occurred by Republican/conservative groups during the Biden administration with a single U.S. District Court judge in Texas who was a Trump appointee, and before that, had worked for the conservative Christian legal organization First Liberty Institute from 2014 to 2019.

 

Per Wikipedia:

 

"Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ... is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated to the position by President Donald Trump in 2017 and sworn in for the position in 2019.

 

Conservative groups and the Texas Attorney General tend to file cases in Kacsmaryk's jurisdiction so that he is likely to hear those cases, as he reliably rules against Democratic policies and for Republican policies.^[3][4] His court has been hospitable to conservative lawsuits that many lawyers consider meritless.

...

Conservative groups have strategically chosen to file lawsuits challenging many Biden administration policies in Kacsmaryk's division. Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge in the Amarillo Division of the Northern District; 95% of lawsuits filed there are assigned to him.^[34][3] By March 2023, the Texas Attorney General's Office under Ken Paxton filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Drew B. Tipton.^[35] Kacsmaryk and Tipton have denied various Justice Department motions to change venues.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

 

 

 

 

[riclag]

1 minute ago, theblether said:

 

I was referring to the ruling which looks certain to fail. 

Respectfully,the Treasury Department  is arcane  in dealing with many issues !

I agree with you about the district judge shopping , 100%.

[OneMoreFarang]

9 hours ago, theblether said:

against district court judges issuing national injunctions or stopping government policies from being enacted.

There is another option.

If the government would make sure all their policies are legal, then that problem wouldn't exist. 

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Article III 

 

The Supreme Court has the power to declare on constitutional issues. District judges are subordinate. 

 

• The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the actions of the president and lawmakers, and declare them unconstitutional.

It's up to the Supreme Court to decide if that is the case. Not Donald Trump nor Elon Musk.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Article III 

 

The Supreme Court has the power to declare on constitutional issues. District judges are subordinate. 

 

• The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court, which has the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to review the actions of the president and lawmakers, and declare them unconstitutional.

That power actually is not delineated in the Constitution. It was Madison vs. Marbury that the Supreme Court under John Marshall first made a ruling on constitutional grounds.

[gargamon]

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

You could read the Constitution Article III —it’s just that simple.

The Cult of the Orange Buffoon don't read (or comprehend) the constitution.

[impulse]

15 minutes ago, gargamon said:

The Cult of the Orange Buffoon don't read (or comprehend) the constitution.

 

We're smart enough to know that all those books you see on lawyers' shelves were written for a reason, and that any noob simply reading the constitution can't possibly comprehend the volumes and volumes of case law and precedent.  You can take an entire semester long class on the meaning of a single word you'd find in the Constitution.  Or you can believe that you understand what it says, just by reading it.

 

Which one sounds more realistic?

 

Edit:  And I'll give you a hint.  Rachel, Whoopi and Joy don't know what it really says, either.

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

39 minutes ago, gargamon said:

The Cult of the Orange Buffoon don't read (or comprehend) the constitution.

I like to think of him as the Orange Mandela, after nutty leftists tried to jail him for a Voldemort crime. That is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for. Trump was nearly a political prisoner. How pathetic

[scottiejohn]

31 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

hat is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for

Read the Judge/jury statements from his guilty trial!

[impulse]

21 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Read the Judge/jury statements from his guilty trial!

 

Help us out here.  Why don't you summarize them for us, in your own words?   Feel free to dumb it down so us simple folks can understand it.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

I like to think of him as the Orange Mandela, after nutty leftists tried to jail him for a Voldemort crime. That is, not one single hater here can accurately state what crime his "34 felonies" were for. Trump was nearly a political prisoner. How pathetic

 

Not sure that being a "hater" has to do with it, but anyone who can read can accurately state what his 34 felony convictions were for.

 

As stated in the article below (and in countless others) they were for "falsifying business records in the first degree."

 

What are 34 felony charges against Trump, and what do they reveal?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65181178

[SunnyinBangrak]

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

Not sure that being a "hater" has to do with it, but anyone who can read can accurately state what his 34 felony convictions were for.

 

As stated in the article below (and in countless others) they were for "falsifying business records in the first degree."

 

What are 34 felony charges against Trump, and what do they reveal?

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65181178

That, my friend, was a long expired misdemeanor. BBC should have done their homework instead of trotting out a silly democrat narrative. 

Truth is, nobody knows what his felony conviction was for. And due to DJT not knowing what crime he was being tried for, had no way to prepare a defence. Real kangaroo court justice to please simple minds and the liberal hivemind.

 

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

falsifying business records in the first degree

 

Those are misdemeanors, for which the statute of limitations had already expired. 

 

If you even count money that was paid to an attorney being recorded as a legal expense as a crime at all.

 

Try again.  Use small words so we simpletons can understand.