3 ms·

TROs are preliminary injunctions in all but name. I expect SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus reining them in otherwise Congress will simply remove the nationwid

by nimish 2y ago

TROs are preliminary injunctions in all but name. I expect SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus reining them in otherwise Congress will simply remove the nationwide ability to issue them from the lower courts.

yladiz 2y ago
I don’t believe Congress can simply remove the ability for courts to issue restraining orders, and I don’t see why the supreme court would write any writs like that considering it’s not clear that 1. DOGE is even fully legal in the way it’s acting, and 2. that it has legal mandate for what it asks for, like in this case.
- nimish 2y ago
  >I don’t believe Congress can simply remove the ability for courts to issue restraining orders, and I don’t see why the supreme court would write any writs like that considering it’s not clear that 1. DOGE is even fully legal in the way it’s acting, and 2. that it has legal mandate for what it asks for, like in this case. The lower federal courts are not specifically authorized in the Constitution; their power comes from the Judiciary Act and SCOTUS delegating. SCOTUS can issue writs of mandamus for whatever they want to within constitutional bounds and they might have to otherwise we'll get a bigger constitutional crisis on how much the executive branch has to listen to the judiciary. We already had this w/ Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”
  - yladiz 2y ago
    Still, why would the Supreme Court write such a writ? The courts seem to be following correct procedure, and it doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court or a lower court is the one to decide, the executive branch is still beholden to the decision, so I don’t really get the point about a bigger constitutional crisis if the executive doesn’t listen anyway, since there’s still the same crisis.
    - nimish 2y ago
      If the executive decides to not enforce judicial orders since it feels like they are unfairly applied that is basically the total breakdown of the rule of law. That's what is likely to happen if the courts enjoin without discretion. It's what Jackson did to SCOTUS under Marshall. Article III allows for congress to simply remove the ability for the lower courts to bind the executive at all. That'd be the biggest legal issue in centuries.

by nimish 2y ago

yladiz 2y ago

I don’t believe Congress can simply remove the ability for courts to issue restraining orders, and I don’t see why the supreme court would write any writs like that considering it’s not clear that 1. DOGE is even fully legal in the way it’s acting, and 2. that it has legal mandate for what it asks for, like in this case.

nimish 2y ago
>I don’t believe Congress can simply remove the ability for courts to issue restraining orders, and I don’t see why the supreme court would write any writs like that considering it’s not clear that 1. DOGE is even fully legal in the way it’s acting, and 2. that it has legal mandate for what it asks for, like in this case. The lower federal courts are not specifically authorized in the Constitution; their power comes from the Judiciary Act and SCOTUS delegating. SCOTUS can issue writs of mandamus for whatever they want to within constitutional bounds and they might have to otherwise we'll get a bigger constitutional crisis on how much the executive branch has to listen to the judiciary. We already had this w/ Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”
- yladiz 2y ago
  Still, why would the Supreme Court write such a writ? The courts seem to be following correct procedure, and it doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court or a lower court is the one to decide, the executive branch is still beholden to the decision, so I don’t really get the point about a bigger constitutional crisis if the executive doesn’t listen anyway, since there’s still the same crisis.
  - nimish 2y ago
    If the executive decides to not enforce judicial orders since it feels like they are unfairly applied that is basically the total breakdown of the rule of law. That's what is likely to happen if the courts enjoin without discretion. It's what Jackson did to SCOTUS under Marshall. Article III allows for congress to simply remove the ability for the lower courts to bind the executive at all. That'd be the biggest legal issue in centuries.