3 ms·

This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now. Without you telling me any specific harms of

This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now. Without you telling me any specific harms of the "chaos and inconsistency", and how you think they will be reduced now, then I can only consider the harms of the new potentials for inconsistency which is "the excecutive intentionally does not appeal when they lose to small groups because they want to be able to continue to overreach nationally." What are the concrete examples of chaotic things that caused issues that you don't think could happen now?

firesteelrain 1y ago
These come to mind: 1. In 2017, one district court blocked Trump’s travel ban nationwide, while others upheld it. That led to confusion at airports and legal whiplash 2. In 2019, one judge blocked the public charge immigration rule nationwide, while others allowed it. The rule ended up applying in some States and not others 3. Multiple district courts issued conflicting nationwide injunctions on Title IX guidance for transgender students during the Obama and Trump years Those are just some Inconsistency is still possible. But the alternative was worse What we had was a race to the most favorable courtroom The fix isn’t unlimited injunctions. It’s reform and not stretching judicial power beyond what the law allows
- majormajor 1y ago
  And what happened next in those cases? Was the inconsistency resolved? How is there less room for inconsistency now? If a judge has said five plaintiffs can play on a certain sports team in one jurisdiction, now the sports administrators need to know every ruling in every jurisdiction that their league functions in? What makes you think "reform" is going to happen here? Have you read much of the material pushing for increased executive power on the right? It's very clear that the goal is solely to remove impediments to stretch executive power to the point that executive power decides what the law allows.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    No, all of these cases are not resolved to this day Title IX issue is not resolved. Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule. But not before creating mass confusion. Trump travel ban was resolved by SCOTUS as valid once Trump modified the ban The point is that nationwide injunctions from different district courts created that chaos in the first place, often forcing rushed Supreme Court intervention just to untangle conflicting orders
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        If "working as expected" means conflicting nationwide orders from different judges, policy whiplash across states, and emergency SCOTUS intervention just to sort it all out.. then that’s exactly the kind of chaos the Court is trying to fix
        ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Yes, that is working as designed. It is the design chosen because it is better than the alternative of hundreds of conflicting orders leaving innocent people unprotected. This will obviously increase the number conflicting orders by several orders of magnitude, but either way: the conflicting orders are what we want to happen, because it errs on the side of caution. The fact that some courts disagreed didn't negatively affect me at all. Where was all the "chaos" caused by courts disagreeing? "Policy whiplash"? lol. Might as well go full ridiculous and call it "policy murderdeathkill" or something, that sounds much scarier.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        It’s not about sounding scary. It is about whether our legal system should allow a single district judge to set nationwide policy even when their ruling conflicts with other courts, before the issue has been fully litigated through appeals What you are advocating for is legal uncertainty at scale. The new limits push legal questions upward through appeals rather than outward through conflicting orders and ensure national issues are resolved by courts with the authority to decide them.

firesteelrain 1y ago

These come to mind: 1. In 2017, one district court blocked Trump’s travel ban nationwide, while others upheld it. That led to confusion at airports and legal whiplash 2. In 2019, one judge blocked the public charge immigration rule nationwide, while others allowed it. The rule ended up applying in some States and not others 3. Multiple district courts issued conflicting nationwide injunctions on Title IX guidance for transgender students during the Obama and Trump years Those are just some Inconsistency is still possible. But the alternative was worse What we had was a race to the most favorable courtroom The fix isn’t unlimited injunctions. It’s reform and not stretching judicial power beyond what the law allows

majormajor 1y ago
And what happened next in those cases? Was the inconsistency resolved? How is there less room for inconsistency now? If a judge has said five plaintiffs can play on a certain sports team in one jurisdiction, now the sports administrators need to know every ruling in every jurisdiction that their league functions in? What makes you think "reform" is going to happen here? Have you read much of the material pushing for increased executive power on the right? It's very clear that the goal is solely to remove impediments to stretch executive power to the point that executive power decides what the law allows.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  No, all of these cases are not resolved to this day Title IX issue is not resolved. Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule. But not before creating mass confusion. Trump travel ban was resolved by SCOTUS as valid once Trump modified the ban The point is that nationwide injunctions from different district courts created that chaos in the first place, often forcing rushed Supreme Court intervention just to untangle conflicting orders
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      If "working as expected" means conflicting nationwide orders from different judges, policy whiplash across states, and emergency SCOTUS intervention just to sort it all out.. then that’s exactly the kind of chaos the Court is trying to fix
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        Yes, that is working as designed. It is the design chosen because it is better than the alternative of hundreds of conflicting orders leaving innocent people unprotected. This will obviously increase the number conflicting orders by several orders of magnitude, but either way: the conflicting orders are what we want to happen, because it errs on the side of caution. The fact that some courts disagreed didn't negatively affect me at all. Where was all the "chaos" caused by courts disagreeing? "Policy whiplash"? lol. Might as well go full ridiculous and call it "policy murderdeathkill" or something, that sounds much scarier.
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        It’s not about sounding scary. It is about whether our legal system should allow a single district judge to set nationwide policy even when their ruling conflicts with other courts, before the issue has been fully litigated through appeals What you are advocating for is legal uncertainty at scale. The new limits push legal questions upward through appeals rather than outward through conflicting orders and ensure national issues are resolved by courts with the authority to decide them.