Posted on 09/13/2018 7:20:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
WASHINGTON—Republican lawmakers are taking aim at the growing practice of federal judges issuing nationwide rulings, hoping to tackle an issue that has repeatedly stymied President Trump’s agenda during his year-and-a-half in office.
The House Judiciary Committee will consider legislation Thursday to curb nationwide injunctions—when a federal judge on one of the U.S.’s 94 district courts issues a ruling that covers the entire country, often halting a presidential initiative, program or action.
The bill, proposed by committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), would instruct judges to write rulings that apply only to the individuals, organizations or entities that are part of the lawsuit in front of them.
While the federal judiciary operates as an independent branch of government, Congress retains significant authority under the Constitution to write rules governing federal courts, including questions of procedure, organization and jurisdiction. It is unclear how the courts would view legislation like that of Mr. Goodlatte, which limits the kinds of rulings they can issue and the scope of how they decide cases.
Although the legislation’s path to enactment is far from clear, the proposal from the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee reflects a frustration among some conservatives and the administration about the workings of the court system in the Trump era.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
About time to put an end to that
An excellent (and well overdue) start.
Only took them till the midterms.
Not a word about these same judges cheering on Obama’s unconstitutional “executive actions” out of them either.
A judge will declare this bill unconstitutional.
Ha!
Congress passes a law, President signs it, Hawaii judge issues an injunction.
District Judges should not be able to ‘make law’ affecting the entire nation.
Every decision like that should be overturned right now.
The same should happen to these judges.
They need to remove immigration law from the jurisdiction of inferior Federal Courts. They have Constitutional authority to do so. That way only the serious cases will be taken by SCOTUS and activists looking to muck-up enforcement won’t be able to venue shop for friendly judges.
The “national” injunctions sound like an effort to short circuit the Supreme Court.
Will never reach Trump’s desk.
While they’re at it, Congress should impeach such traitorous judges.
“Congress passes a law, President signs it, Hawaii judge issues an injunction. “
Hawaii Judge’s “remains” found in one of Hawaii’s active volcanos!
When Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will pull out his copy of the Constitution and find the following in Article III, Section 2:
“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
We do not have federal common law, even the Court has no power to make law. The Legislative authority of the federal government is solely invested in the Congress and is not delegatable to any other, no the other branches of government nor any international or treaty body.
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. It is up to Congress to set the limits of the federal courts’ jurisdiction.
This should have been stopped a long time ago. Right now we should totally ignore these judges and their insane ruling.
In Travel Ban Ruling, Justice Thomas Takes Aim At Nationwide Injunctions
Justice Clarence Thomas opened the door to future Supreme Court sparring over an issue with profound legal and practical implications that go well beyond Trump’s travel ban in his concurring opinion in Trump v. Hawaii.
Thomas — the underappreciated revolutionary of the Supreme Court, in the sense of his work to restore founding principles in the law through philosophically consistent originalist jurisprudence – called into question the very idea that a single federal judge in Hawaii can impose an injunction barring a presidential executive order against anyone nationwide in the first place.
If his words are any indication, the practice of issuing “universal injunctions” may face the scrutiny of the highest court in the land.
If it is, per Marshall in Marbury, worse than a solemn mockery to require Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then require them to turn a blind eye to it and see only statute then what is it to require those in other branches of government to take similar oath and then to make them turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only the opinions of the Court?
There is no delegated power given the Court or courts to review laws BUT this arises as an obligation to be faithful to the Constitution rather than the ongoing operations of the government that are not pursuant to the Constitution.
As it is not delegated as a power to the judiciary the judiciary has no special claim to the obligation to be faithful that their oath imposes.
There is no “judicial review” ... only “review” ... and it is an obligation only rationally useful when used destructively of things not pursuant to the Constitution.
It is itself a thing worse than a solemn mockery to use an obligation to be faithful as the basis for an unfettered power to pull crap out of your arse and find unlawful things to be lawful (a constructive power) as the modern Court has done.
They will declare it unconstitutional and ignore it.............
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.