4 ms·

I agree with you, but for a different reason, assuming I am even understanding what is happening here, I'm not American. My reading is that under the previous

I agree with you, but for a different reason, assuming I am even understanding what is happening here, I'm not American. My reading is that under the previous system, a single district could prevent an order federally, even if every other district judge agreed with the new order. I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. I would understand that they could limit powers in their district, and potentially challenge laws at a state level, and then federally. Let's look at how this could have impacted a topic that gets my attention in the US, gun laws. I'm definitely left, so let's say a president came in and made some order about changing gun laws and made it harder to get a gun. It seems to me, that if that were to occur, a single judge in a gun-loving district could block the order universally for all the other states? That doesn't seem right. It does make sense that they could say that law doesn't apply to our district, and we will challenge that law being applied to our state and if the state agrees, they could then challenge the law federally. I'm obviously making up a ton of stuff about a system that I don't understand.

underlipton 1y ago
>I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. Should a single person be able to pull a fire alarm? Or do we need building-wide consensus first?
- pastor_williams 1y ago
  Should a single person be able to block access to the fire hydrant or do we need consensus?
  - pedalpete 1y ago
    That's the right take. Thank you. I came up with a much worse analogy.
  - bravesoul2 1y ago
    Should a single person be able to block the decision of the top ranking fire-fighter. That fire-fighter may be good, or may be in the job because he likes things to burn.
  - underlipton 1y ago
    Absolutely. And then someone grabs the authorities, they ascertain that access to the fire hydrant is necessary, and they remove the block. Or, they ascertain that access to the hydrant would result in harm (e.g., the people who want access want to damage it, or use it improperly), and allow the block to stay in place/remove the hydrant. Both the alarm and hydrant block are temporary emergency measures to prevent lasting injury should the relief not be granted immediately. They are only there until an authoritative decision is made.
- pedalpete 1y ago
  I am looking for feedback, but I don't think that is a valid argument. A single person absolutely can and should pull the fire alarm! Are you suggesting that an entire country should operate as a single building? Different districts have different laws and by-laws, and a district judge SHOULD be able to take issue with any law being passed down from on high. But should one person be able to challenge and essentially negate the power of the President. Remember, I'm trying to take how this would be viewed if it were not a Trump issue. It's really easy to say "oh it's Trump, so screw him!" I'm just surprised that this is how the system works. A single judge can bring the entire system to a stand-still? Is that really how this works? This isn't a single person pulling a fire alarm. The alarm has been pulled, it's a single person saying "turn that damn thing off, I don't agree with your fire". Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law. Except it's not "getting" played this way. It's been this way for a long, long time. What you're missing is that Federal district and appeals courts are not the final say. They can make (and do so all the time -- and have done so without issue for a very long time) rulings that are in conflict with rulings from other Federal courts. The Supreme court is charged with addressing such conflicts. The way this has worked is that judges issue rulings and those rulings are often "stayed" (not put into effect) to allow for appeal. However, when significant harm is being done prior to such appeals playing out, judges will not stay those rulings. That can create conflict between the 94 Federal court districts when a court in one district rules one way in a case and a court in another district rules another way in a similar case. And the way that's resolved is that those cases are appealed to the Supreme court which removes the conflict. The problem with today's ruling is that it empowers bad actors to ignore rulings from some inferior jurisdictions and operate with impunity in other inferior jurisdictions. More tellingly, the ruling specifically limits inferior court rulings to the specific parties to a case. As such, if the government acts unlawfully, only those who have actively filed suit against the government are covered by such rulings -- even if the actions taken by the government are blatantly illegal and/or the government's actions will likely be deemed inappropriate on appeal. Which opens a loophole allowing the government to circumvent the courts (which are a co-equal branch of government and not meant to be subservient to the other branches) by blatantly breaking the law (e.g., stripping a natural born and/or naturalized citizens of their rights as citizens and shipping them off to god knows where without due process) against those who have not filed suit (either because they don't have the resources to do so and/or are deprived of the opportunity to do so by the executive branch). And as long as losing party (in this case the executive branch) doesn't appeal (either to appeals courts and/or the Supreme Court) their loss(es) in inferior court(s), the Supreme Court never has the opportunity to address the conflicts (if any, as this is still a loophole even if no other courts have ruled on similar cases), essentially giving the Executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want to anyone who hasn't pre-emptively filed suit and/or anyone they illegally (i.e., without due process) hold incommunicado, whether in the US or on foreign soil. I'm not sure how things work in your country (as you didn't say which one it was), but I'm guessing that you wouldn't appreciate being disappeared without recourse if the government unilaterally decides to do so. The issue isn't whether a single Federal judge can make rulings affecting the nation, but rather that the Executive and Legislative Branches must heed the rulings of the Judicial Branch, regardless of where those rulings originate. If the other branches don't like it, they can appeal (and the Executive Branch doesn't even have to wait for such cases to reach the Supreme Court via the appeals process, they can go directly to the Supreme Court and ask them for a ruling immediately) such rulings. This decision stands that on its head, effectively saying that if you are not a named plaintiff in any Federal court case, any ruling doesn't apply to you unless and until the Supreme court rules on the case one way or another. Which, as I mentioned, allows the Executive Branch to avoid judicial scrutiny by not appealing rulings against them. In the past, the Executive Branch would need to get appeals courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court to rule, removing ambiguity and conflicts (if any), this ruling creates a fractured and ambiguous legal landscape where relief from government overreach only applies to those with the ability and resources to sue in Federal court. This is not fixing something that's broken, it's creating a multi-tiered justice system that the Executive Branch can manipulate to do pretty much anything it wants, even if it's blatantly (like stripping natural born citizens of their citizenship -- cf. the Fourteenth Amendment[0] to our constitution) illegal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [1] [1] Section 1 of the 14th amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [2] [2] To clarify, since you're not from/in the US, Amendments to our constitution, once ratified (by 2/3 majorities in both houses of congress and by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states -- the 14th was ratified in 1868, so this is nothing new), are incorporated into our constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land in the US.

underlipton 1y ago

>I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. Should a single person be able to pull a fire alarm? Or do we need building-wide consensus first?

pastor_williams 1y ago
Should a single person be able to block access to the fire hydrant or do we need consensus?
- pedalpete 1y ago
  That's the right take. Thank you. I came up with a much worse analogy.
- bravesoul2 1y ago
  Should a single person be able to block the decision of the top ranking fire-fighter. That fire-fighter may be good, or may be in the job because he likes things to burn.
- underlipton 1y ago
  Absolutely. And then someone grabs the authorities, they ascertain that access to the fire hydrant is necessary, and they remove the block. Or, they ascertain that access to the hydrant would result in harm (e.g., the people who want access want to damage it, or use it improperly), and allow the block to stay in place/remove the hydrant. Both the alarm and hydrant block are temporary emergency measures to prevent lasting injury should the relief not be granted immediately. They are only there until an authoritative decision is made.
pedalpete 1y ago
I am looking for feedback, but I don't think that is a valid argument. A single person absolutely can and should pull the fire alarm! Are you suggesting that an entire country should operate as a single building? Different districts have different laws and by-laws, and a district judge SHOULD be able to take issue with any law being passed down from on high. But should one person be able to challenge and essentially negate the power of the President. Remember, I'm trying to take how this would be viewed if it were not a Trump issue. It's really easy to say "oh it's Trump, so screw him!" I'm just surprised that this is how the system works. A single judge can bring the entire system to a stand-still? Is that really how this works? This isn't a single person pulling a fire alarm. The alarm has been pulled, it's a single person saying "turn that damn thing off, I don't agree with your fire". Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law.
- nobody9999 1y ago
  >Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law. Except it's not "getting" played this way. It's been this way for a long, long time. What you're missing is that Federal district and appeals courts are not the final say. They can make (and do so all the time -- and have done so without issue for a very long time) rulings that are in conflict with rulings from other Federal courts. The Supreme court is charged with addressing such conflicts. The way this has worked is that judges issue rulings and those rulings are often "stayed" (not put into effect) to allow for appeal. However, when significant harm is being done prior to such appeals playing out, judges will not stay those rulings. That can create conflict between the 94 Federal court districts when a court in one district rules one way in a case and a court in another district rules another way in a similar case. And the way that's resolved is that those cases are appealed to the Supreme court which removes the conflict. The problem with today's ruling is that it empowers bad actors to ignore rulings from some inferior jurisdictions and operate with impunity in other inferior jurisdictions. More tellingly, the ruling specifically limits inferior court rulings to the specific parties to a case. As such, if the government acts unlawfully, only those who have actively filed suit against the government are covered by such rulings -- even if the actions taken by the government are blatantly illegal and/or the government's actions will likely be deemed inappropriate on appeal. Which opens a loophole allowing the government to circumvent the courts (which are a co-equal branch of government and not meant to be subservient to the other branches) by blatantly breaking the law (e.g., stripping a natural born and/or naturalized citizens of their rights as citizens and shipping them off to god knows where without due process) against those who have not filed suit (either because they don't have the resources to do so and/or are deprived of the opportunity to do so by the executive branch). And as long as losing party (in this case the executive branch) doesn't appeal (either to appeals courts and/or the Supreme Court) their loss(es) in inferior court(s), the Supreme Court never has the opportunity to address the conflicts (if any, as this is still a loophole even if no other courts have ruled on similar cases), essentially giving the Executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want to anyone who hasn't pre-emptively filed suit and/or anyone they illegally (i.e., without due process) hold incommunicado, whether in the US or on foreign soil. I'm not sure how things work in your country (as you didn't say which one it was), but I'm guessing that you wouldn't appreciate being disappeared without recourse if the government unilaterally decides to do so. The issue isn't whether a single Federal judge can make rulings affecting the nation, but rather that the Executive and Legislative Branches must heed the rulings of the Judicial Branch, regardless of where those rulings originate. If the other branches don't like it, they can appeal (and the Executive Branch doesn't even have to wait for such cases to reach the Supreme Court via the appeals process, they can go directly to the Supreme Court and ask them for a ruling immediately) such rulings. This decision stands that on its head, effectively saying that if you are not a named plaintiff in any Federal court case, any ruling doesn't apply to you unless and until the Supreme court rules on the case one way or another. Which, as I mentioned, allows the Executive Branch to avoid judicial scrutiny by not appealing rulings against them. In the past, the Executive Branch would need to get appeals courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court to rule, removing ambiguity and conflicts (if any), this ruling creates a fractured and ambiguous legal landscape where relief from government overreach only applies to those with the ability and resources to sue in Federal court. This is not fixing something that's broken, it's creating a multi-tiered justice system that the Executive Branch can manipulate to do pretty much anything it wants, even if it's blatantly (like stripping natural born citizens of their citizenship -- cf. the Fourteenth Amendment[0] to our constitution) illegal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... [1] [1] Section 1 of the 14th amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [2] [2] To clarify, since you're not from/in the US, Amendments to our constitution, once ratified (by 2/3 majorities in both houses of congress and by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states -- the 14th was ratified in 1868, so this is nothing new), are incorporated into our constitution -- which is the supreme law of the land in the US.