Posted on 11/26/2018 6:06:52 AM PST by Kaslin
Here's the relevant bit from Justice Thomas' concurrence in the Trump vs. Hawaii immigration case...
Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.1 District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system — preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. 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.
I'd look for Thomas to find a case this term to challenge this concept of "universal injunctions".
What’s the 1 for?
Are you saying that Chief Justice Roberts said 0bama care is not a tax? He did say it was a tax
The only way President Trump could do that if Chief Justice resigns
Despite being appointed by Bush, Roberts is an Obama judge.
Roberts = Kennedy
We are back to square one again - a tied Court on many important Constitutional (and cultural) issues.
It’s not nearly that bad, thank God. He hasn’t completely jumped the shark, at least not yet.The salient fact about Roberts’ claim that there are no Obama judges or Trump judges is that - precisely in the manner that journalists claim that “all journalists are objective” - judges all claim that all judges are objective.
Since journalists are (contrary to the impression they like to project) mere private individuals without licenses from the government, their claims are bogus and it is in the public interest that people have more sense than to take them seriously. As Adam Smith put it,
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)We read comments of fellow FReepers precisely to gain from the “incredulity” they can bring to reports of journalists and columnists. “Incredulity” towards reports and opinions of fellow citizens - and of the executive and legislative branches of government - is in the public interest. But incredulity towards the judicial branch raises a deep problem of constitutional legitimacy, and it is that problem which Justice Roberts assays to alleviate with his “dishonest” tap dance.The same behavior (as Roberts’ “tap dance”) was exhibited by SCOTUS in its Bush v. Gore decision. The majority in that decision knew full well that the Supreme Court of Florida was putting its thumb on the scale to cheat Bush, but instead of saying so outright it twisted logic into a pretzel in order to find for Bush without saying that another court was being run by cheaters. And ended its decision by enjoining lawyers in future cases from ever citing that pretzel.
There is no question Chief Justice Roberts was wrong to even speak. They are Obama Judges, absolutely.
Tax or not a tax it was illegal forced government insurance he was a puppet for Obama he can’t be trusted.
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.