1 hour ago, Procus said:

So tell us, what is the authority that was conferred upon district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. We're all ears.

The federal courts have jurisdiction over

• Cases that raise a "federal question" involving the United States Government , the U.S. Constitution, or other federal laws; and

• Cases involving "diversity of citizenship," which are disputes between two parties not from the same state or country, and where the claim meets a set dollar threshold for damages.  

More specifically, federal courts hear criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases. And once a case is decided, it can often be appealed. 

From the federal courts website. I even put it in bold. Their authority is only limited by being bound to higher court decisions.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

The federal courts have jurisdiction over

• Cases that raise a "federal question" involving the United States Government , the U.S. Constitution, or other federal laws; and

• Cases involving "diversity of citizenship," which are disputes between two parties not from the same state or country, and where the claim meets a set dollar threshold for damages.  

More specifically, federal courts hear criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases. And once a case is decided, it can often be appealed. 

From the federal courts website. I even put it in bold. Their authority is only limited by being bound to higher court decisions.

Everything you said except your last sentence is correct. District Court jurisdiction is as you state - but there is nothing in there that gives the district court the jurisdiction to issue these types of nationwide injunctions - and that is what the Supreme Court addressed today.

So let's say you have a Maryland plaintiff before a Maryland District Court, and that plaintiff complains that, let's say for example, that a Trump EO that rescinds student loan forgiveness is unconstitutional or improper for some reason, and the court agrees. That court would be able to enjoin collection of student loan indebtedness from the plaintiff in the case before the court. However, many courts went extreme and said that the order applied to ALL such collection actions throughout the country and applies to parties not before the court. These are the types of rulings that were addressed in the opinion that issued this morning.

1 minute ago, Procus said:

The problem with that is that district courts are created by statute, and their jurisdiction is limited by the statutes that created them.

And no, it does not create an executive who can rule by decree. While the constitution creates an executive branch with strong powers, they are not unlimited. There is nothing in the ruling today I saw which restricts the ability of district courts to rule that an executive order is unconstitutional. It just restricts the ability of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. These injunctions are not limited to matters relating to executive orders. Such injunctions have issued regarding other matters such as regulations, administrative agency actions, government policies, etc.

What is the purpose of an injunction? Come on "lawyer".

An injunction is to prevent harm to parties while the case is being tried. In national matters like birthright citizenship those harmed are not limited to a small party that may file the case in a given district.

Therefore, currently in 28 states, birthright citizenship has been limited. In 22 states, the status quo and prevention from harm is being withheld by the injunctions of the lower courts. This by definition is a violation of equal protection created by SCOTUS.

So, until rulings are made we have a big problem for those not protected by the injunction. This time will be exploited by Miller and that will show you exactly how terrible a Pandora's box that has been opened by this SCOTUS. You are only fine with it because you agree with the actions that brought about this case. Just wait until someone you disagree with is in power. And maybe then you will be wishing for a nationwide injunction from an "activist judge" while you are forced to follow an executive order by a President from the other team.

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

Everything you said except your last sentence is correct. District Court jurisdiction is as you state - but there is nothing in there that gives the district court the jurisdiction to issue these types of nationwide injunctions - and that is what the Supreme Court addressed today.

So let's say you have a Maryland plaintiff before a Maryland District Court, and that plaintiff complains that, let's say for example, that a Trump EO that rescinds student loan forgiveness is unconstitutional or improper for some reason, and the court agrees. That court would be able to enjoin collection of student loan indebtedness from the plaintiff in the case before the court. However, many courts went extreme and said that the order applied to ALL such collection actions throughout the country and applies to parties not before the court. These are the types of rulings that were addressed in the opinion that issued this morning.

You are absolutely wrong here. Matters involving the federal government and the constitution are heard there. And the example you give is narrow and does not address a core constitutional right such as birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS dropped the ball.

41 minutes ago, TEW said:

Please, please, PLEASE run an annoying woman for President again! I beg of you, do it for the rest of time. 🙏🏻

I've already said I want Shapiro, but our country has a really bad habit of over correcting.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

I've already said I want Shapiro, but our country has a really bad habit of over correcting.

You’ll get AOC crying on national television after a loss to Vance or Rubio, and you’ll like it!

9 minutes ago, BBE said:

What is the purpose of an injunction? Come on "lawyer".

An injunction is to prevent harm to parties while the case is being tried. In national matters like birthright citizenship those harmed are not limited to a small party that may file the case in a given district.

Therefore, currently in 28 states, birthright citizenship has been limited. In 22 states, the status quo and prevention from harm is being withheld by the injunctions of the lower courts. This by definition is a violation of equal protection created by SCOTUS.

So, until rulings are made we have a big problem for those not protected by the injunction. This time will be exploited by Miller and that will show you exactly how terrible a Pandora's box that has been opened by this SCOTUS. You are only fine with it because you agree with the actions that brought about this case. Just wait until someone you disagree with is in power. And maybe then you will be wishing for a nationwide injunction from an "activist judge" while you are forced to follow an executive order by a President from the other team.

You can't have nationwide injunctions for the simple reason that a judge in Oregon can't rule upon a matter not before it that is occurring in Florida. That is why such matters are taken up to the Supreme Court which is the only court which has legal jurisdiction over matters throughout the country.

Suppose a Florida judge rules different than the Oregon judge on the same issue. Who is right?

4 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I've already said I want Shapiro, but our country has a really bad habit of over correcting.

Prepare for President Crockett who by executive order has the IRS freeze all of whitey's assets and redistribute them as reparations. Better hope your state files are lawsuit in Federal Court.

8 minutes ago, BBE said:

You are absolutely wrong here. Matters involving the federal government and the constitution are heard there. And the example you give is narrow and does not address a core constitutional right such as birthright citizenship.

SCOTUS dropped the ball.

You really don't understand the concept of in personam jurisdiction as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction.

Just now, Procus said:

You can't have nationwide injunctions for the simple reason that a judge in Oregon can't rule upon a matter not before it that is occurring in Florida. That is why such matters are taken up to the Supreme Court which is the only court which has legal jurisdiction over matters throughout the country.

Suppose a Florida judge rules different than the Oregon judge on the same issue. Who is right?

That is simply not true. Constitutional matters are nationwide in scope.

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

You can't have nationwide injunctions for the simple reason that a judge in Oregon can't rule upon a matter not before it that is occurring in Florida. That is why such matters are taken up to the Supreme Court which is the only court which has legal jurisdiction over matters throughout the country.

Suppose a Florida judge rules different than the Oregon judge on the same issue. Who is right?

Is that a serious question? Circuit splits happen all the time and are ultimately resolved by SCOTUS. And in those cases, everything is stayed until SCOTUS rules.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

That is simply not true. Constitutional matters are nationwide in scope.

As I said, you really don't understand the concept of in personam jurisdiction as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Is that a serious question? Circuit splits happen all the time and are ultimately resolved by SCOTUS. And in those cases, everything is stayed until SCOTUS rules.

That's right - circuit splits are resolved by the Supreme Court. Stays are a different matter and are not always applied.

Just now, Procus said:

That's right - circuit splits are resolved by the Supreme Court. Stays are a different matter and are not always applied.

I seriously can't think of a single time there was a circuit split on something like this and it wasn't stayed pending appeal.

Just now, vikas83 said:

I seriously can't think of a single time there was a circuit split on something like this and it wasn't stayed pending appeal.

In the first place, not all circuit splits wind up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides whether or not it wants to hear a case. In the second place, I seriously doubt you have done a real analysis on stays issued pending appeal.

The real problem that the liberals on this thread have with today's ruling regarding nationwide injunctions is that it is by and large left wing activist judges that are issuing these nationwide injunctions - not conservative judges. If a conservative judge issued a nationwide injunction, you people would go nuts over it.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

You really don't understand the concept of in personam jurisdiction.

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.

Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826.)

Original jurisdiction. Initial hearing of a federal case. In personam restricts the parties and the venue in which the suit may be filed. When one of the parties is the federal government the jurisdiction can be anywhere and the decision applies everywhere. In personam in this case merely makes the filing location for the plaintiff convenient and does not limit the decision scope in cases which affect everyone.

Just now, BBE said:

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.

Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 826.)

Original jurisdiction. Initial hearing of a federal case. In personam restricts the parties and the venue in which the suit may be filed. When one of the parties is the federal government the jurisdiction can be anywhere and the decision applies everywhere. In personam in this case merely makes the filing location for the plaintiff convenient and does not limit the decision scope in cases which affect everyone.

In personam jurisdiction literally means jurisdiction over the person. Good analysis on your part regarding in personam jurisdiction over the federal government - but again, today's ruling provides that nationwide injunctions exceed the authority granted to the district courts. From today's Supreme Court blog:

Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884)

Because universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts, the Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below regarding the implementation and enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

In personam jurisdiction literally means jurisdiction over the person. Good analysis on your part regarding in personam jurisdiction over the federal government - but again, today's ruling provides that nationwide injunctions exceed the authority granted to the district courts. From today's Supreme Court blog:

Trump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884)

Because universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts, the Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below regarding the implementation and enforcement of President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.

Way to circle back to using the ruling in question to justify the ruling in question.

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

Way to circle back to using the ruling in question to justify the ruling in question.

I'm sorry that this doesn't work for a person with such depth of knowledge and expertise in the law such as yourself.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

I'm sorry that this doesn't work for a person with such depth of knowledge and expertise in the law such as yourself.

You just created a circular argument. Tried yo use a personal jurisdiction as a basis for limiting a federal court jurisdiction on a federal matter that affects individuals in every state.

And your argument consists of stating the ruling to support the same ruling which is being questioned. Should you really be judgmental of anyone's law knowledge when you argue so circularly and attempt to misapply a matter of personal jurisdiction to a broad federal matter?

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

You just created a circular argument. Tried yo use a personal jurisdiction as a basis for limiting a federal court jurisdiction on a federal matter that affects individuals in every state.

And your argument consists of stating the ruling to support the same ruling which is being questioned. Should you really be judgmental of anyone's law knowledge when you argue so circularly and attempt to misapply a matter of personal jurisdiction to a broad federal matter?

No - I discussed personal jurisdiction when you were confusing it with subject matter jurisdiction.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Stare decisis does not trump the Constitution. The body of federal common law is much smaller than the body common law in the states which goes back to English roots.

I don't think you understand the derivation of law and interplay between constitutional, statutory and common law.

No, some people just like to drill down to the minutiae.

I just don't think you're smart enough to understand something other than the broad concept of it.

Just now, Bill said:

No, some people just like to drill down to the minutiae.

I just don't think you're smart enough to understand something other than the broad concept of it.

Like I give a rat's ass what you think

I'll tell you what's happening. Radical judges were having a party and SCOTUS f'ed it up.