1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

He does not care about court procedure and neither does Trump or MAGA.

From what I've read, Boasberg is very very highly respected by both sides of the aisle and withing the legal world as a super competent and fair judge.  Yet we we are with the entire MAGAsphere calling him "rogue", "activist", "leftist", "marxist", etc. because they don't like one decision that he has taken.

He was appointed by George W. Bush.  I mean, give me a break 

3 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

He was appointed by George W. Bush.  I mean, give me a break 

He's also the judge that didn't force the IRS to turn over Trump's taxes. He gave 1/6 defendants light sentences. 

With Trump, you must be 100% loyal or you are attacked.

It's cool to see a lot of the medical experts from 2020 got their JD over quarantine.

3 hours ago, vikas83 said:

JFC -- the entire point of an injunction is to freeze things in place and avoid any party suffering irreparable harm before the court can make a fully informed and briefed decision. These issues can't be adjudicated in minutes without trampling on the due process rights of both sides. 

We have laws and processes on how these things need to be done. If the administration doesn't like the law, then they should work to change it. But you can't simply ignore the law because you want to -- and the precedent being set here will be used by a liberal President in the future. 

If your position is that the executive branch should be able to do as it pleases, because it won an election, then congratulations -- you support a tyranny of the majority and the rule of an autocrat. You support everything this country was founded to resist. It doesn't matter if Trump got 90% of the vote, the law still needs to be followed in a Republic.

Which is why limits on the ability of a single district judge to place a nationwide injunction need to be placed.  The Supreme Court requires a majority of justices to issue or affirm, or overturn an injunction, yet a single district judge can issue an order that affects the entire nation.  We all know that different district judges would issue different rulings on these issues.  Desantis came up with a solution, and no, it is not impeachment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-proposes-solution-trumps-agenda-stymied-judges

 

1 minute ago, Procus said:

Which is why limits on the ability of a single district judge to place a nationwide injunction need to be placed.  The Supreme Court requires a majority of justices to issue or affirm, or overturn an injunction, yet a single district judge can issue an order that affects the entire nation.  We all know that different district judges would issue different rulings on these issues.  Desantis came up with a solution, and no, it is not impeachment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-proposes-solution-trumps-agenda-stymied-judges

 

So the solution is to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the Executive Branch? Just rename the office to "King" then and be done with it. This is dangerously stupid.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

So the solution is to strip federal courts of jurisdiction over the Executive Branch? Just rename the office to "King" then and be done with it. This is dangerously stupid.

No - strip the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.  BTW, this cuts both ways.  A conservative judge could just as easily issue a nationwide injunction against executive action taken by a liberal president.

5 minutes ago, Procus said:

 A conservative judge could just as easily issue a nationwide injunction against executive action taken by a liberal president.

And…… that would be entirely within their right. 

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

No - strip the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.  BTW, this cuts both ways.  A conservative judge could just as easily issue a nationwide injunction against executive action taken by a liberal president.

I mean, they have. 

You can't strip a judge's ability to issue an injunction. If you limited it to the District in which they are located, then you'd necessitate lawsuits being filed in EVERY jurisdiction in the system and end up with mass confusion and inconsistent application of the law. It's a legitimately retarded idea.

Easier idea -- follow the law and appeal through the system. Trump and the DOJ could file an expedited appeal to the DC Circuit and it likely would be heard quickly.

And to be clear, DeSantis' proposal is to strip jurisdiction for District Court to hear cases, not just stop them from issuing injunctions.

Quote

 

As aspects of President Donald Trump's agenda are stymied by judges amid legal challenges, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has suggested that Congress could strip federal courts of jurisdiction.

"Congress has the authority to strip jurisdiction of the federal courts to decide these cases in the first place. The sabotaging of President Trump’s agenda by ‘resistance’ judges was predictable — why no jurisdiction-stripping bills tee’d up at the onset of this Congress?" DeSantis wrote in a Wednesday post on X.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Procus said:

No - strip the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.  BTW, this cuts both ways.  A conservative judge could just as easily issue a nationwide injunction against executive action taken by a liberal president.

Again, these district judges are hearing federal cases and those cases are required to be filed there both procedurally and geographically. Limiting the injunction to a district when the challenged action affects the entire country merits the scope of the injunction.  Especially given that very few if any cases can be directly filed/accepted by SCOTUS. 

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And to be clear, DeSantis' proposal is to strip jurisdiction for District Court to hear cases, not just stop them from issuing injunctions.

 

The font of bad ideas springs eternal. 

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

Again, these district judges are hearing federal cases and those cases are required to be filed there both procedurally and geographically. Limiting the injunction to a district when the challenged action affects the entire country merits the scope of the injunction.  Especially given that very few if any cases can be directly filed/accepted by SCOTUS. 

There are a myriad of different alternatives.  There could be Article III trial level courts established for the purpose of hearing actions at equity as opposed to law which require injunction proceedings to be heard by a panel and which injunctions could only issue by a majority of the panel.  There could be limitations on the geographic scope of the injunctions.

As things stand right now, too much power is placed in the hands of a single district judge on these issues.

15 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

And…… that would be entirely within their right. 

You mean within their jurisdiction, but that would also lend itself to abuse.

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is people thinking they inefficiency in which the executive branch can make broad changes to government structure and laws is a flaw. It's not. It's a feature not a bug. To prevent this very crap. 

 

...and here we are

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

You mean within their jurisdiction, but that would also lend itself to abuse.

Of course within their jurisdiction. That’s a given, right? 

16 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And to be clear, DeSantis' proposal is to strip jurisdiction for District Court to hear cases, not just stop them from issuing injunctions.

 

In many if not most states, until around 50 years ago, that was exactly the way it was.  There were separate courts of equity and separate courts of law.  It's only relatively recently that the jurisdiction of trial level judges was merged to hear both cases in equity and at law

Just now, Procus said:

There are a myriad of different alternatives.  There could be Article III trial level courts established for the purpose of hearing actions at equity as opposed to law which require injunction proceedings to be heard by a panel and which injunctions could only issue by a majority of the panel.  There could be limitations on the geographic scope of the injunctions.

As things stand right now, too much power is placed in the hands of a single district judge on these issues.

So, more courts is the answer?  Get Congress on it!  Until then, the system is working as designed.  SCOTUS has a full docket with cases that progress through the standard means.

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

 

...and here we are

Diehard must be on the government trial team.

1 minute ago, BBE said:

So, more courts is the answer?  Get Congress on it!  Until then, the system is working as designed.  SCOTUS has a full docket with cases that progress through the standard means.

Not necessarily - reassignment of judges is a viable solution.  But you are correct that getting Congressional action is also good. 

The issue here is judicial encroachment on functions that lie exclusively within the executive branch.  There is also a problem of judicial encroachment on functions that lie with Congress and the president that really is not at issue here, but has been at issue previously. 

6 minutes ago, Procus said:

In many if not most states, until around 50 years ago, that was exactly the way it was.  There were separate courts of equity and separate courts of law.  It's only relatively recently that the jurisdiction of trial level judges was merged to hear both cases in equity and at law

The only true courts of equity are BK courts. At least in the federal system.

4 minutes ago, BBE said:

Diehard must be on the government trial team.

How normal is it for DOJ to just do nothing for a deadline like that?

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

How normal is it for DOJ to just do nothing for a deadline like that?

Prior to this administration? Unprecedented. You would at least ask for an extension.

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Prior to this administration? Unprecedented. You would at least ask for an extension.

This.  Stuff like this will cause judges of different political backgrounds to unify under the banner of disrespect of judges will be tolerated.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Prior to this administration? Unprecedented. You would at least ask for an extension.

That's what I would have thought.  I was thinking maybe Trump/WH would just ignore the judges at some point and maybe that is just what they are doing with this one now.