4 ms·

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legis

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function. In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them. If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.

unsnap_biceps 1y ago
So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it? I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).
- tmountain 1y ago
  This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.
  - Whoppertime 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... Sovereign Immunity is an idea that has a long precedence. The Supreme Court was arguing that bad behaviour by the President is resolved through impeachment, and once they are out of office they are subject to criminal charges.
    - tmountain 1y ago
      Almost any idea has long precedence, but the confluence of recent rulings, taken in its aggregate, provides a pretty well defined toolkit for a major departure from the normative state into the prerogative state. No amount of intellectual Zamboni reasoning can change the fact that it’s obvious to any rational observer that the U.S. is speed running an authoritarian takeover. Naturally some will support these changes and others will oppose them, but it’s as objectively verifiable as climate change; albeit, with the same chorus of denialism.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
intermerda 1y ago
[flagged]
- manwe150 1y ago
  The constitution is the supreme law for that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President” “This Constitution, … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Curiously also, there is legal scholarly debate about whether judges would have the right to enforce this clause, or only congress: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_...
ceejayoz 1y ago
> If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. What are they supposed to do in your theoretical setup? Pass the law again? Add “we really mean it this time” to the end?
boston_clone 1y ago
> In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Truly, fascism and autocracy are more efficient than checks and balances; not everything must be made “efficient”. Do we chastise an oak or redwood for taking its time?

unsnap_biceps 1y ago

So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well? Or would the legislature run a hearing and then ask the judiciary branch to pick the punishment and then have the legislature apply it? I just don't understand how you expect this to work unless the point is to make the judiciary branch entirely pointless (for government level check and balances).

tmountain 1y ago
This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.
- Whoppertime 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... Sovereign Immunity is an idea that has a long precedence. The Supreme Court was arguing that bad behaviour by the President is resolved through impeachment, and once they are out of office they are subject to criminal charges.
  - tmountain 1y ago
    Almost any idea has long precedence, but the confluence of recent rulings, taken in its aggregate, provides a pretty well defined toolkit for a major departure from the normative state into the prerogative state. No amount of intellectual Zamboni reasoning can change the fact that it’s obvious to any rational observer that the U.S. is speed running an authoritarian takeover. Naturally some will support these changes and others will oppose them, but it’s as objectively verifiable as climate change; albeit, with the same chorus of denialism.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

intermerda 1y ago

[flagged]

manwe150 1y ago
The constitution is the supreme law for that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President” “This Constitution, … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Curiously also, there is legal scholarly debate about whether judges would have the right to enforce this clause, or only congress: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_...

ceejayoz 1y ago

> If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. What are they supposed to do in your theoretical setup? Pass the law again? Add “we really mean it this time” to the end?

boston_clone 1y ago

> In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Truly, fascism and autocracy are more efficient than checks and balances; not everything must be made “efficient”. Do we chastise an oak or redwood for taking its time?