Posted on 11/03/2019 2:37:27 PM PST by ransomnote
We strongly disagree with the district court’s decision to impose a nationwide injunction against the President’s policy on a preliminary, emergency basis over the weekend without even affording the government an opportunity to provide a written defense. Once again, a nationwide injunction is permitting a single judge to thwart the President’s policy judgment on a matter where Congress expressly gave the President authority. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act plainly states that, “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he may “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” As the Supreme Court held in a recent landmark case, this statute “exudes deference to the President in every clause.” It is wrong and unfair for a single district court judge to thwart the policies that the President determined would best protect the United States healthcare system — and for the United States taxpayers to suffer the grave consequences of the immense strain inflicted on the healthcare system from subsidizing uncompensated care for those seeking admission. The Administration looks forward to the opportunity to make its defense in court, and it will continue to vigorously defend the President’s policies to protect the interests of the American people.
Excerpt: Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act plainly states that, “[w]henever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he may “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Once again, a nationwide injunction is permitting a single judge to thwart the President’s policy judgment on a matter where Congress expressly gave the President authority.
” It is wrong and unfair for a single district court judge to thwart the policies that the President determined would best protect the United States healthcare system — and for the United States taxpayers to suffer the grave consequences of the immense strain inflicted on the healthcare system from subsidizing uncompensated care for those seeking admission.
“We strongly disagree with the district court’s decision to impose a nationwide injunction against the President’s policy...”
Its nice to disagree, but how about doing something that will stop this activist judicial overreach? I am not a lawyer, but I have read enough to understand judges can’t set decisions for other districts. Other districts can submit to a decision, or deny it. Trump needs to actively challenge this overreach so it will stop. By the time another court overturns this, much of the mouth breathing public will already believe Trump’s action was illegal.
This was Decide by the Supreme Court already (muslim ban) he should file an emergency appeal and the Supreme Court should slap them down hard for this and issue an Order from the Court that District Courts do NOT have any authority to issue any Nationwide Injunctions on Anything.
the president has only to declare it an “emergency” and then he has unlimited powers granted by the constitution itself.
No. One judge's injunction provides cover for Deep State bureaucrats to ignore the President's orders, under the claim that their hands are tied by this one judge's injunction.
If the president could simply fire any bureaucrat who refused to carry out his orders, and judges were thus ignored, then judges would stop issuing such orders.
It is wrong and unfair for a single district court judge to thwart the policies that the President determined would best protect the United States healthcare system — and for the United States taxpayers to suffer the grave consequences of the immense strain inflicted on the healthcare system from subsidizing uncompensated care for those seeking admission.
The judge should be getting a hood pulled down over his face, and soon.
When are they going to defy one of these nationwide injunctions from a district court?
The fanatical lib party would immediately add defying the judge's injunction as another article of impeachment.
With the useless, biased ussc chief judge john roberts turning a blind eye, assisting the democrats.
The judge is merely ruling on enthusiasm toward impeachment, as his ruling has no basis in law. Letting these leftists get away with their law breaking crap just emboldened our institutions to join in.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon is a federal court serving the area corresponding to the state of Oregon. The District has courthouses in Portland, Eugene, Medford, and Pendleton.
One state.
NOT anywhere else in the country.
Can you imagine what a squish Harriet Miers would have been?
We're getting spoiled by Trump's judicial picks.
So why would the judge claim the injunction was nationwide if he knew he lacked the authority? Is this a standard tactic?
Judicial over-reach as part of the Resistance against Trump.
The Media won't call any of the Democrat district judges on it - but they would howl "Impeachable Offense!" if Trump and his administration only respected the injunction in that district, and no others.
Justice Clarence Thomas has made threatening noises about this type of judicial abuse:
Clarence Thomas, Alone, Asserts National Injunctions Are 'Historically Dubious'
June 26, 2018
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/06/26/clarence-thomas-alone-asserts-national-injunctions-are-historically-dubious/?slreturn=20191003192225
“These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion in the travel ban case Trump v. Hawaii. "And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this court must address their legality.”
Would certainly like to see President Trump say, ‘No, you have no authority in this case...Well will implement the law as planned’...
As 7th Circuit puts off reckoning for nationwide injunctions, DOJ pushes at 9th
AUGUST 21, 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-otc-injunction/as-7th-circuit-puts-off-reckoning-for-nationwide-injunctions-doj-pushes-at-9th-idUSKCN1L620U
The debate over nationwide injunctions as a tool for opponents of presidential policies will no longer have a decisive moment at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 6 – but that doesn’t mean the Justice Department is slacking off as it presses appellate courts to stop allowing a single trial judge to block nationwide implementation of executive actions.
Nationwide injunctions (which sometimes go by slightly different names, such as national injunctions) have become one of the most potent weapons for state officials who want to resist presidential policies. The strategy took off in the Obama administration, when Republican AGs persuaded trial courts to grant sweeping injunctions to block health care, immigration and employee overtime policies. After President Trump was elected, Democratic AGs adopted and expanded the tactic. It’s now almost routine for suits challenging presidential policies to ask the trial judge to shut down the policy across the country. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said the injunctions paralyze government and “gravely threaten” the constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine...
Even more information on the shenanigans at the link.
Judicial game-playing - this is actually from a year ago, and should have been resolved nationally by now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.