3 ms·

Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces

Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed. Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job. The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job.

mistrial9 1y ago
this seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - wtfwhateven 1y ago
    It's not remotely accurate and all it does is demonstrate you have no understanding on how any of it works. See the other replies for an explanation. Oddly (and tellingly) you ignored them.
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  It has zero convincing arguments. It describes itself as a "technofeudalist", anything it says should be immediately discarded. It proudly hates the constitution and freedom. Lying about the very mechanisms meant to stop tyrants (something it is opposed to) is simply a furtherance of its treasonous and anti-American agenda.
Supermancho 1y ago
> Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job. It's impractical to rule on a subject before allowing parties to formulate coherent prepared arguments. Ruling on circumstantial evidence is a temporary stop, leaving the ruling up to an appellate which will invalidate it due to it being founded on circumstantial evidence. The injunctions were the practical way to allows all parties to formulate their case and make a legal reasoning for a ruling. Written law has to be incremental and narrow for interpretation. Otherwise it's an interpretive dance free for all in every case. You have repeatedly implied that the jobs of Judges are something other than what you they are. Ofc you don't think they are doing what you think they should be. That's inconsequential.
kurikuri 1y ago
> Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. What? That makes no sense. You can lookup which court and judge (or panel of judges) issued the injunctions. I do not understand why this non-existent anonymity would motivate a judge to issue an injunction. > They can still strike down a law or executive branch policy. Federal courts will only look at cases if there is a party with standing who engages in a lawsuit. If someone is being deported without due process, it will be hard for them to bring suit. > This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. In general there are two reasons why these temporary restraining orders which have been issued. The first being that not doing so would cause irrevocable (or ridiculously difficult to revoke) harm (e.g., deporting people to a foreign jail). The second is that the TRO is used to stop something which seems illegal on its face (e.g. deporting people to countries from which they have never been). > It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed. It does alter the power dynamic of our democracy. Now, the executive branch can repeatedly perform illegal acts and only needs to stop its behavior in cases which have been decided. This checks and balances isn’t about stopping each other branch in a vacuum, the intent is to stop the government from overreaching on its citizenry. By crippling all of the lower courts, the Supreme Court has created a bureaucratic bottleneck for itself, allowing the executive branch to effectively DDoS the judicial system with case after case. > The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job. No, it was the judge telling the executive branch that the executive branch must recognize the citizenship of children born on US soil. Instead of actually appealing the TRO on grounds of the legality of their actions, the executive branch has decided to complain about the legality of a court telling the executive branch to stop. Who is supposed to tell the executive branch to stop doing something illegal, congress? Part of the point of the executive branch was to allow for some expedience, congress is slow. A judge is in a perfect position to tell the executive branch to stop, they don’t need to wait on committee and are not beholden to the president. Without the ability, the executive branch can quite literally do whatever the president wants.
LorenPechtel 1y ago
How are they not doing their job? A judge's job is to *judge*. They have basically zero ability to gather evidence, that is the responsibility for the parties to the case. Would you have them issue a ruling before being presented with evidence? That makes no sense. But at the same time harm can come from not issuing a ruling. Thus we have injunctions--if a judge feels a case is likely to prevail they can issue an injunction prohibiting actions which inflict harm that can't be remedied by the resolution of the case.

mistrial9 1y ago

this seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?

yieldcrv 1y ago
[flagged]
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  It's not remotely accurate and all it does is demonstrate you have no understanding on how any of it works. See the other replies for an explanation. Oddly (and tellingly) you ignored them.
wtfwhateven 1y ago
It has zero convincing arguments. It describes itself as a "technofeudalist", anything it says should be immediately discarded. It proudly hates the constitution and freedom. Lying about the very mechanisms meant to stop tyrants (something it is opposed to) is simply a furtherance of its treasonous and anti-American agenda.

Supermancho 1y ago

> Every issue that any partisan has with this country is because one branch isn’t doing their job. It's impractical to rule on a subject before allowing parties to formulate coherent prepared arguments. Ruling on circumstantial evidence is a temporary stop, leaving the ruling up to an appellate which will invalidate it due to it being founded on circumstantial evidence. The injunctions were the practical way to allows all parties to formulate their case and make a legal reasoning for a ruling. Written law has to be incremental and narrow for interpretation. Otherwise it's an interpretive dance free for all in every case. You have repeatedly implied that the jobs of Judges are something other than what you they are. Ofc you don't think they are doing what you think they should be. That's inconsequential.

kurikuri 1y ago

> Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. What? That makes no sense. You can lookup which court and judge (or panel of judges) issued the injunctions. I do not understand why this non-existent anonymity would motivate a judge to issue an injunction. > They can still strike down a law or executive branch policy. Federal courts will only look at cases if there is a party with standing who engages in a lawsuit. If someone is being deported without due process, it will be hard for them to bring suit. > This forces judges to actually do their job., instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. In general there are two reasons why these temporary restraining orders which have been issued. The first being that not doing so would cause irrevocable (or ridiculously difficult to revoke) harm (e.g., deporting people to a foreign jail). The second is that the TRO is used to stop something which seems illegal on its face (e.g. deporting people to countries from which they have never been). > It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the constitution and congress prescribed. It does alter the power dynamic of our democracy. Now, the executive branch can repeatedly perform illegal acts and only needs to stop its behavior in cases which have been decided. This checks and balances isn’t about stopping each other branch in a vacuum, the intent is to stop the government from overreaching on its citizenry. By crippling all of the lower courts, the Supreme Court has created a bureaucratic bottleneck for itself, allowing the executive branch to effectively DDoS the judicial system with case after case. > The disruptive aspect of this - with concern to the birthright case that hasnt been ruled on yet - is just another example of this. Judges not doing their job. No, it was the judge telling the executive branch that the executive branch must recognize the citizenship of children born on US soil. Instead of actually appealing the TRO on grounds of the legality of their actions, the executive branch has decided to complain about the legality of a court telling the executive branch to stop. Who is supposed to tell the executive branch to stop doing something illegal, congress? Part of the point of the executive branch was to allow for some expedience, congress is slow. A judge is in a perfect position to tell the executive branch to stop, they don’t need to wait on committee and are not beholden to the president. Without the ability, the executive branch can quite literally do whatever the president wants.

LorenPechtel 1y ago

How are they not doing their job? A judge's job is to *judge*. They have basically zero ability to gather evidence, that is the responsibility for the parties to the case. Would you have them issue a ruling before being presented with evidence? That makes no sense. But at the same time harm can come from not issuing a ruling. Thus we have injunctions--if a judge feels a case is likely to prevail they can issue an injunction prohibiting actions which inflict harm that can't be remedied by the resolution of the case.