1 minute ago, Procus said:

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

No as a matter of fact I wasn't. You are only asserting that to support your circular argument.

2 minutes ago, BBE said:

No as a matter of fact I wasn't. You are only asserting that to support your circular argument.

You cited something about original jurisdiction which goes to the subject matter. I'll let you get your last word in. Done with this discussion with you.

Just now, Procus said:

You cited something about original jurisdiction which goes to the subject matter. I'll let you get your last word in. Done with this discussion with you.

No, it doesn't. It requires that all federal cases except the 4 or 5 types reserved for SCOTUS have to be heard at the district level first which is then limited by venue and/or persons involved. Therefore it is it's own type of jurisdiction.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

You cited something about original jurisdiction which goes to the subject matter. I'll let you get your last word in. Done with this discussion with you.

Now back to your circular "It is correct because it is" argument. You would be laughed out of a court if you tried that.

2 hours ago, Procus said:

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

Show me a post where I assert there is one.

58 minutes ago, Procus said:

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.

Duh, of course, and they have done so during Obama's time. This is precisely why I asked you to state your position in here. Of course I knew you would not answer. You are a pure partisan hack and if you do hold a law degree, which I highly doubt, you shouldn't.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Duh, of course, and they have done so during Obama's time. This is precisely why I asked you to state your position in here. Of course I knew would not answer. You are a pure partisan hack and if you do hold a law degree, which I highly doubt, you shouldn't.

I believe in judicial restraint. From all appearances, you believe in judicial activism.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

I believe in judicial restraint. From all appearances, you believe in judicial activism.

Uhh, did you even read my posts? I plainly and clearly exclaimed my desire to limit national injunctions. You refused to state your position as I knew you would.

8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Uhh, did you even read my posts? I plainly and clearly exclaimed my desire to limit national injunctions. You refused to state your position as I knew you would.

Careful. You may knock another leg from his argument. And I agree with you that there is a small subset of cases which merit nationwide injunctions. Rather than define that subset via a test, SCOTUS created a monster.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Looking at that limited info I don't think we can infer that the right to issue nationwide injunctions is gone. However, it is very clear that there is at minimum some standard that needs to be met. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Personally, I would like some clear standard to be defined. I do not think the optimal outcome is "never" but equally it isn't "always" which is where we have been for some years now.

I'm not legal expert but it seemed to hinge on standing. Plaintiffs claimed broad standing to bring a legal challenge akin to class action (my comparison as a legal novice/ignorant) and this decision seems to be that district courts can't and should not broadly grant plaintiffs the ability to claim and represent injury to a broad class of citizens.

On that point I'm in agreement with this decision.

6 hours ago, Bill said:

It seems pretty evident that this SCOTUS is adamant that things need standards, but so far it seems unwilling to actually, you know, set the standard.

That's SCOTUS in a nutshell. They want plaintiffs bringing cases to try and establish a standard as part of the case but are often (at least since Warren) reticent to try and be party to establishing the standard.

This is what criticism of the court being "activist" gets you. A court bullied into making feckless decisions that lack guidance.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

You'll have to decide if you want to take this type of position and apply it consistently to all three branches or not. So far I don't think you have done so. The same would apply to what the Constitution affords each branch.

What say ye? Do you want to be held to this logic/protocol consistently for all three branches or do you want to pick and choose when you want to use this argument?

Or if he wants executive orders from Dem presidents to have the same latitude

56 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

That's SCOTUS in a nutshell. They want plaintiffs bringing cases to try and establish a standard as part of the case but are often (at least since Warren) reticent to try and be party to establishing the standard.

This is what criticism of the court being "activist" gets you. A court bullied into making feckless decisions that lack guidance.

I mean if they were ruled based on previously established standards, then yeah.

But they're saying that standards aren't being met, and then not setting what that standard actually is. They're ussyfooting around. Just make a ruling and be done with it instead of kicking the can down the road.

6 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Don't dodge my question please. Are you going to apply this logic consistently or not?

5 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.

The supreme court has been granted rulemaking authority.

Their abrogation of that duty under Roberts, who was and is so afraid if being named for a court that would live in infamy that he's driven them to it.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The supreme court has been granted rulemaking authority.

Their abrogation of that duty under Roberts, who was and is so afraid if being named for a court that would live in infamy that he's driven them to it.

What's the point you're trying to make here? I don't get how you're trying to link rule making authority and the recent decisions.

7 minutes ago, Procus said:

What's the point you're trying to make here? I don't get how you're trying to link rule making authority and the recent decisions.

You're arguing that courts don't get to set standards and guidelines by which the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted.

I'm saying they absolutely do.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

This is what criticism of the court being "activist" gets you. A court bullied into making feckless decisions that lack guidance.

Here's where I disagree with you fundamentally - people in your camp maintain that the court has a duty to set the tone and direction of the country through its rulings, at least in part. I think that lies within the purview of the legislative and executive branch who are elected. The court is there to provide interpretation. It shouldn't make law. That was the problem with Roe v Wade, forced bussing during the Warren Court.

It is the duty of the litigants before the court to present the issues, and for the court to rule on the issues presented. When a court steps outside what is presented before it, that is improper from my point of view. Many here will disagree.

33 minutes ago, Bill said:

I mean if they were ruled based on previously established standards, then yeah.

But they're saying that standards aren't being met, and then not setting what that standard actually is. They're ussyfooting around. Just make a ruling and be done with it instead of kicking the can down the road.

That's exactly what they're doing. Because Roberts is feckless.

I generally agree with Roberts' decisions. But his unwillingness to follow through is an abdication of duty.

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Here's where I disagree with you fundamentally - people in your camp maintain that the court has a duty to set the tone and direction of the country through its rulings, at least in part. I think that lies

No, that's what YOU want to THINK the "other camp" believes.

Your strawman is showing.

The supreme court has a duty to establish clear precedent and where possible guidelines for lower courts to apply justice consistently.

What we have now is a SCOTUS that refuses to establish any guidance around standards and tests, and thusly you get fragmented and inconsistent decision making from lower courts and a steady march of insane cases to the highest court.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

No, that's what YOU want to THINK the "other camp" believes.

Your strawman is showing.

So your position is that the Supreme Court today INCORRECTLY interpreted existing law in, let's say, that injunction ruling today?

Just now, JohnSnowsHair said:

The supreme court has a duty to establish clear precedent and where possible guidelines for lower courts to apply justice consistently.

What we have now is a SCOTUS that refuses to establish any guidance around standards and tests, and thusly you get fragmented and inconsistent decision making from lower courts and a steady march of insane cases to the highest court.

So going back to the injunction case today, would the opinion have been better structured from a conservative's point of view had the court included clearer language that district courts are not permitted to issue nationwide injunctions in most cases?

1 minute ago, Procus said:

So going back to the injunction case today, would the opinion have been better structured from a conservative's point of view had the court included clearer language that district courts are not permitted to issue nationwide injunctions in most cases?

Only if the opinion included a means for the lower court to determine the appropriate scope. Had they set guard rails, then the decision is exponentially better.

Yeesh. Might get a little uncomfortable in the break room after this ACB broadside on KBJ