7 ms·

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. T

by vkou 1y ago

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the country you want to live in? Do you think this is how it should run? Here's a wild idea. If the executive disagrees with the federal courts on the merits of whether or not its decisions are illegal, it can appeal up to SCOTUS, and win a case on its merits. It can't do that because even under this SCOTUS, their case has no merits. > exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review That is the entire bloody point of checks and balances. You are cheer-leading the complete destruction of them. The government, when challenged on the legality of what its doing, needs to win their case in court, because the courts are the final arbiters of written law.

stateaffairs 1y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 1y ago
  > Of course, because innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of courts litigating the legality of executive actions is not establishing innocence or guilt, so what you're saying is completely irrelevant. The president doesn't go to prison because some court found that he signed an illegal executive order. (But it sounds like you maybe think that should be the case. It's hard to tell, because you aren't saying anything coherent.) > The POTUS doesn't need to ask for permission to politicized local judges Let's play a simple game. If he signs a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal EO ordering the US Marshals to have you and your family arrested, tortured, and shot tomorrow, whose permission do you think he should need? Which parts of the government would be able to stop him? You seem to think that no 'politicized'[1] judge should be allowed to say "Whoa, hold on there, that may be illegal." --- [1] What the hell does 'politicized' mean? Is there a single person in government who is not 'politicized'? Is SCOTUS somehow not 'politicized'? Is the executive?
  - anigbrowl 1y ago
    It's not worth replying to incoherent comments. Just DV or flag them.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- esseph 1y ago
  Its "politicized" when it's something someone doesn't like. It can't just be, I don't know, a plain reading of the fucking law. It's time to Balkanize.
  - stateaffairs 1y ago
    Most of these blocks have been overturned, and important government action has been unnecessarily delayed.
umbra07 1y ago
> The state of affairs is that: Yes, this has been going on for decades at various levels of government. It's very common when it comes to gun rights. The government (local/state and federal) will frequently avoid appealing if they think they might then lose the case, setting a wide precedent for millions of people.
- Hnrobert42 1y ago
  But the difference is that now the government can continue to enforce its policy against anyone who has not sued.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
firesteelrain 1y ago
I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class action or taking it up to the Supreme Court Not giving individual judges a veto over national law.
- vkou 1y ago
  > Not giving individual judges a veto over national law. It's not a veto, it's a delay until appeal. If the lower court is wrong, SCOTUS has never had any issue with settling the question. The fact that the government isn't appealing means that they know they can't win on appeal, and what they are doing is illegal.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    Right, it’s a delay, not a final veto. But when that delay applies nationwide, it functions like a veto until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. But the solution isn’t to stretch injunction power beyond its legal limits It is about who gets to block national policy for everyone, based on one local case. That kind of sweeping relief was never authorized by Congress
    - vkou 1y ago
      > until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years It doesn't take months or years for SCOTUS to determine whether or not they will take a case. If they don't want to take it, they are fine with the arguments made in the lower courts, and tough shit, but that means that the loser is in the wrong. > If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. You're damn right it's a valid concern. It's a valid concern because this removed the only mechanism that there was to force them to address it.

by vkou 1y ago

stateaffairs 1y ago

[flagged]

vkou 1y ago
> Of course, because innocent until proven guilty. The purpose of courts litigating the legality of executive actions is not establishing innocence or guilt, so what you're saying is completely irrelevant. The president doesn't go to prison because some court found that he signed an illegal executive order. (But it sounds like you maybe think that should be the case. It's hard to tell, because you aren't saying anything coherent.) > The POTUS doesn't need to ask for permission to politicized local judges Let's play a simple game. If he signs a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal EO ordering the US Marshals to have you and your family arrested, tortured, and shot tomorrow, whose permission do you think he should need? Which parts of the government would be able to stop him? You seem to think that no 'politicized'[1] judge should be allowed to say "Whoa, hold on there, that may be illegal." --- [1] What the hell does 'politicized' mean? Is there a single person in government who is not 'politicized'? Is SCOTUS somehow not 'politicized'? Is the executive?
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  It's not worth replying to incoherent comments. Just DV or flag them.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
esseph 1y ago
Its "politicized" when it's something someone doesn't like. It can't just be, I don't know, a plain reading of the fucking law. It's time to Balkanize.
- stateaffairs 1y ago
  Most of these blocks have been overturned, and important government action has been unnecessarily delayed.

umbra07 1y ago

> The state of affairs is that: Yes, this has been going on for decades at various levels of government. It's very common when it comes to gun rights. The government (local/state and federal) will frequently avoid appealing if they think they might then lose the case, setting a wide precedent for millions of people.

Hnrobert42 1y ago
But the difference is that now the government can continue to enforce its policy against anyone who has not sued.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

firesteelrain 1y ago

I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class action or taking it up to the Supreme Court Not giving individual judges a veto over national law.

vkou 1y ago
> Not giving individual judges a veto over national law. It's not a veto, it's a delay until appeal. If the lower court is wrong, SCOTUS has never had any issue with settling the question. The fact that the government isn't appealing means that they know they can't win on appeal, and what they are doing is illegal.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  Right, it’s a delay, not a final veto. But when that delay applies nationwide, it functions like a veto until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. But the solution isn’t to stretch injunction power beyond its legal limits It is about who gets to block national policy for everyone, based on one local case. That kind of sweeping relief was never authorized by Congress
  - vkou 1y ago
    > until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years It doesn't take months or years for SCOTUS to determine whether or not they will take a case. If they don't want to take it, they are fine with the arguments made in the lower courts, and tough shit, but that means that the loser is in the wrong. > If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. You're damn right it's a valid concern. It's a valid concern because this removed the only mechanism that there was to force them to address it.