Edited: While class action suits will no doubt be filed (if not already), I fully support the limits being put on lower federal District Judges. Nationwide issues should not be determined by lower-level judges, too many political lawsuits are taken "Judge Shopping" to get the decision the complainant wants to only be determined by a higher court. The last five Presidents have had similar problems so, Dems shouldn't have a huge issue with this decision but, apparently, TDS is overwhelming good sense. SCOTUS has finally (hopefully) put an end to that.
This is not to suggest that I disagree or agree with every Executive Order DJT or any other President has signed but, I definitely agree with the SCOTUS decision today.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-29-2025).]
While class action suits will no doubt be filed (if not already), I fully support the limits being put on lower federal District Judges. Nationwide issues should not be determined by lower-level judges, too many political lawsuits are taken "Judge Shopping" to get the decision the complainant wants to only be determined by a higher court. The last five Presidents have had similar problems. SCOTUS has finally (hopefully) put an end to that
This is not to suggest that I disagree or agree with every Executive Order DJT has signed but, I definitely agree with the SCOTUS decision today.
Rams
They were conceived as, created as, and named, Federal DISTRICT Courts for a very defined reason.
The SCOTUS opinion today is long overdue and very welcome.
The Left has used the "old paradigm" as an alternative to federal legislation that were unable, or unwilling, to get for far too long.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-29-2025).]
I am waiting for one of these leftist judges to put a nationwide injunction on SCOTUS.
Had this happened during the Biden/Harris Administration, those three dissenting Justices would have voted with the majority, I have no doubt. This decision will increase the case load at SCOTUS but, that is as it should be. Federal District Judges will no longer be able to hold the Executive Branch hostage.
Had this happened during the Biden/Harris Administration, those three dissenting Justices would have voted with the majority, I have no doubt. This decision will increase the case load at SCOTUS but, that is as it should be. Federal District Judges will no longer be able to hold the Executive Branch hostage.
Rams
I was thinking about that... I'm not sure it necessarily means that the Supreme Court will see more work, it just means that the lowest level of Federal judge cannot HALT the president from performing an action, while the lawsuit or case works its way through the process.
An important distinction should be mentioned here... in most cases (literally), the Democrats know that their lawsuits are frivolous and would be thrown out by the Supreme Court anyway. So... they find a very liberal judge that's willing to file an injunction just for the sake of it... to prevent Trump from being successful, even though they know eventually it'll get to SCOTUS and be rejected. Case in point (literally), this will likely result in fewer lawsuits by Democrats because there's absolutely no point in filing them in the first place since they know most of these cases will be tossed out anyway... and they can no longer perform injunctions... so it literally does nothing. I see more work for the appeals court... but overall, I expect fewer work for the Supreme Court from this stuff since there's going to be really no point for the Democrats to file lawsuits since there's no benefit to them, and will just cost them money.
I was thinking about that... I'm not sure it necessarily means that the Supreme Court will see more work, it just means that the lowest level of Federal judge cannot HALT the president from performing an action, while the lawsuit or case works its way through the process.
SNIP
An important distinction should be mentioned here... in most cases (literally), the Democrats know that their lawsuits are frivolous and would be thrown out by the Supreme Court anyway. So... they find a very liberal judge that's willing to file an injunction just for the sake of it... to prevent Trump from being successful, even though they know eventually it'll get to SCOTUS and be rejected. Case in point (literally), this will likely result in fewer lawsuits by Democrats because there's absolutely no point in filing them in the first place since they know most of these cases will be tossed out anyway... and they can no longer perform injunctions... so it literally does nothing. I see more work for the appeals court... but overall, I expect fewer work for the Supreme Court from this stuff since there's going to be really no point for the Democrats to file lawsuits since there's no benefit to them, and will just cost them money.
You could be correct, I'm by no means a legal scholar but, I still believe the Dems will try just to appease their far left wing.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I was thinking about that... I'm not sure it necessarily means that the Supreme Court will see more work, it just means that the lowest level of Federal judge cannot HALT the president from performing an action, while the lawsuit or case works its way through the process.
I have never seen an identified complainer, or their arguments against the defendant, our President. Do the judges just make zhit up ?
I have never seen an identified complainer, or their arguments against the defendant, our President. Do the judges just make zhit up ?
Hahah... well, sort of, but they do exist. They basically go through a process to find "injury," quickly, and then draft up an injunction letter seeking temporary reprieve from whatever it is they want the Republicans to stop doing. The truth is... the Democrats know the majority of these lawsuits will get thrown out... not based on a conservative majority in the courts, but on an actual Constitutional basis. That's because, many of these things the President is doing, the Democrats have actually done themselves and know it's totally legal.
People really don't understand that it's not about what's right or wrong, in most cases... it's about preventing Trump from being successful, as this breeds confidence and increased support... or conversely... a growing dissatisfaction for Democrats. That's why they talk out of both sides of their mouth... e.g., doing everything they can to prevent Trump from imposing tariffs, while at the same time doing that TACO thing they were doing... which means something like Trump Always Chickens Out (that he's not imposing worse tariffs).
The Democrat party is not consistently on defense... and they've put themselves there. They've been there throughout most of Biden's term as well. Republicans have been on the offense since January of Biden's first year. The Democrats, honestly... need to reinvent themselves. They have an extremely radical left base, which is far more sizeable than a perceived "alt right" base. This radical base has basically shaped the modern Democrat party, and it's honestly why they're losing so badly. They may gain house seats here and there, and even take back the house in 2026... but it doesn't represent the underlying view of the Democrat party. They don't have anyone who is inspiring that's also normal. They have people who are inspiring to the radical left, or young people that can't point out Ukraine or Israel on a map if put on the spot to do so. They need a Bill Clinton.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I was thinking about that... I'm not sure it necessarily means that the Supreme Court will see more work, it just means that the lowest level of Federal judge cannot HALT the president from performing an action, while the lawsuit or case works its way through the process.
Trump has by far had mote injunctions filed on him in the first term since all Presidents in the present century than all others combined. TDS. All by judge shopping liberal judges.
I have never seen an injuction which lists the planntifs, who brings a suit before Trump,
An important distinction should be mentioned here... in most cases (literally), the Democrats know that their lawsuits are frivolous and would be thrown out by the Supreme Court anyway. So... they find a very liberal judge that's willing to file an injunction just for the sake of it... to prevent Trump from being successful, even though they know eventually it'll get to SCOTUS and be rejected. Case in point (literally), this will likely result in fewer lawsuits by Democrats because there's absolutely no point in filing them in the first place since they know most of these cases will be tossed out anyway... and they can no longer perform injunctions... so it literally does nothing. I see more work for the appeals court... but overall, I expect fewer work for the Supreme Court from this stuff since there's going to be really no point for the Democrats to file lawsuits since there's no benefit to them, and will just cost them money.[/QUOTE]
Anyone else notice how the Dem Leadership is realing and doesn't seem to have a clue on what to do?
Rams
Nation-wide injunctions were their go-to... so this is a HUGE upset for the Democrats. All that said, it's now set precedence, and it will become an issue for the Republicans when Democrats get back into office as well.
One of the things I've noticed is that Democrats have historically always been the ones who have done things, KNOWING that what they're doing is unconstitutional, but they do it because they know it'll get tied up in the courts. The Republicans have historically always been against using injunctions in all but the most extreme cases. Democrats will routinely do something... knowing full well that it'll get thrown out, but understand it'll take time to go through the courts and it'll be considered OBE by the time a judge makes a decision. We know this because they've actually stated this several times.
With Trump in office, the courts were going to be a primary place for them to resist Trump's goals... knowing that in almost every case, the Supreme Court would rule in favor constitutionally. Remember, the Supreme Court's purpose is to find a way to support the President's authority, while ensuring it's constitutional. This is also why the same conservative Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was totally constitutional.
Anyway, the Democrats overplayed their hand, and basically ruined the whole game for everyone... so to speak. It'll hurt Republicans too if in 4 years a Democrat wins the presidency... as long as the Democrats pick someone who's radical and lunatic. If they pick (and win) with someone who's more moderate, and not suffering from dementia... then I expect fewer lawsuits.
Here we go. A judge in Massachusetts just issued a TRO blocking part of the BBB which cuts off funding to Planned Parrenthood and any other abortion provider.
Here we go. A judge in Massachusetts just issued a TRO blocking part of the BBB which cuts off funding to Planned Parrenthood and any other abortion provider.
Did the SCOTUS ruling apply to TROs? I thought it did. I guess we will find out soon.
Oh, dude... it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I don't even understand what this MA judge thinks their doing. Not only do they no longer have the authority to perform an injunction at that level, but this is a bill authorized by Congress... which this judge has no authority over... it's totally asinine. If anything, it makes me happy that a judge would jeopardize her career because she's so emotional over wanting people to have the right to kill babies. She could face repercussions for doing this.
While I do agree Clinton united the Democrat Party, I'd hate to see such a crook in that office. 
