This is something that has confused me for a while. I'm sure someone here knows how this works. If so, I would appreciate it if you could educate me.

We have all of these District-level judges tossing out rulings or injunctions for just about anything that the Democrats don't like, up to and including the actions of the President.
How in the hell...?! Where is their jurisdiction? How can a judge in Bumblefuk New Mexico make a ruling regarding something that is happening in DC? Or Oklahoma? Or aboard an aircraft enroute to El Salvador? Or anywhere else?
Sounds like an over-reach to me.
All it's doing is wasting time and costing the taxpayers money. They just about all get reversed at the Supreme Court level, anyway.
Each judge needs to be subject to a "three strikes" rule. If a higher court reverses three of your rulings, you get to sit on the sidelines for a year - or better yet, forever.
Or maybe be charged with some sort of "judicial malfeasance".

Judges take an oath to the Constitution, but are appointed and voted on by politicians......many who take a personal oath to power and money, even though they have also taken an oath to the Constitution.

It all boils down to morality......i.e. - We are infested with liars.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: This is something that has confused me for a while. I'm sure someone here knows how this works. If so, I would appreciate it if you could educate me. We have all of these District-level judges tossing out rulings or injunctions for just about anything that the Democrats don't like, up to and including the actions of the President. How in the hell...?! Where is their jurisdiction? How can a judge in Bumblefuk New Mexico make a ruling regarding something that is happening in DC? Or Oklahoma? Or aboard an aircraft enroute to El Salvador? Or anywhere else? Sounds like an over-reach to me. All it's doing is wasting time and costing the taxpayers money. They just about all get reversed at the Supreme Court level, anyway. Each judge needs to be subject to a "three strikes" rule. If a higher court reverses three of your rulings, you get to sit on the sidelines for a year - or better yet, forever. Or maybe be charged with some sort of "judicial malfeasance".

You probably already know this, but I figured I'll say it anyway just in case... but there are both state and Federal judges. Again, pretty sure you already know this, but just stating it for the sake of clarity.

The states have their own court system, and like the Federal system, they have local city, county, and state judges (State Supreme Court). Ultimately, the state generally has no say at all on what the Federal government does, though they can attempt to rule on such issues... but Vertical Federalism prevents them from having any impact. Furthermore, if a state rules on something that violates the Constitution, the Federal court system can overturn the ruling of the state.

At the Federal level, we have 11 districts: (Edit, sorry, I put 9... was recovering from a really bad migraine)




These districts apply to multiple states and are broken out to allow a better distribution of Federal justice throughout the country. There's some debate on whether these should exist at all, but in fact the lower Federal courts were actually created by Congress (not in the Constitution). They're there for a couple of reasons... to reduce the influx of cases to the Supreme Court, and also as a means for supporting Federal charges brought forth by the Department of Justice. Originally, the Federal government didn't really have their own system of laws beyond the Constitution. Some people always ask... why can't murder be charged Federally... and that's because it's a state crime, not a Federal crime. Murder only enters the Federal domain (for example) when it involves a Federal employee or a politician. Lots of laws exist like that.

In any case... the structure exists to better facilitate the Supreme Court... it was never envisioned as something that Democrats could simply try to stall every presidential action. The only thing I'll say though is that the "Executive Order" also doesn't exist in the Constitution, but merely referenced the clause that "laws be faithfully executed." Known as the Take Care Clause, Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution: https://www.law.cornell.edu...care-clause-overview

Personally, there's a fine line that's been crossed. Most of these injunctions that are filed, it's already known how the Supreme Court will rule on them... so it's intentionally done just to hinder the administration from getting something done. There should be some penalty either to knowingly submitting something to the court, or for the district judge to rule on something he/she knows will likely be overturned. This stuff is extremely obvious... and even years ago, you still had "Westlaw" (the digital form of West American Digest) that allowed a judge and his staff to quickly look things up. There are even AI tools now to properly reference Westlaw (laws and regulations) to identify appropriate laws in conflict. In the vast majority of these cases... the district judges already know how SCOTUS will rule, but they do so regardless based on pure ideology.

The left views the court system as a means of activism... as part of a "change agent." This is absolutely not what the court system is for. The court system is literally meant to validate whether or not a law is constitutional... period. It's for this reason why Obamacare / ACA was ruled "constitutional" much to our frustrations. This is how the court system should operate... not on ideology, but on facts based from written law and text. Emotion should have no bearing on a supreme court decision.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-04-2026).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You probably already know this, but I figured I'll say it anyway just in case... but there are both state and Federal judges. Again, pretty sure you already know this, but just stating it for the sake of clarity. .... In any case... the structure exists to better facilitate the Supreme Court... it was never envisioned as something that Democrats could simply try to stall every presidential action. The only thing I'll say though is that the "Executive Order" also doesn't exist in the Constitution, but merely referenced the clause that "laws be faithfully executed." Known as the Take Care Clause, Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution: https://www.law.cornell.edu...care-clause-overview Personally, there's a fine line that's been crossed. Most of these injunctions that are filed, it's already known how the Supreme Court will rule on them... so it's intentionally done just to hinder the administration from getting something done. There should be some penalty either to knowingly submitting something to the court, or for the district judge to rule on something he/she knows will likely be overturned. This stuff is extremely obvious... and even years ago, you still had "Westlaw" (the digital form of West American Digest) that allowed a judge and his staff to quickly look things up. There are even AI tools now to properly reference Westlaw (laws and regulations) to identify appropriate laws in conflict. In the vast majority of these cases... the district judges already know how SCOTUS will rule, but they do so regardless based on pure ideology. The left views the court system as a means of activism... as part of a "change agent." This is absolutely not what the court system is for. The court system is literally meant to validate whether or not a law is constitutional... period. It's for this reason why Obamacare / ACA was ruled "constitutional" much to our frustrations. This is how the court system should operate... not on ideology, but on facts based from written law and text. Emotion should have no bearing on a supreme court decision.

Well, I had an idea about it, but I didn't understand the "whys and hows".
Thanks. That answered my question perfectly.

And you also seem to share my thoughts that these rulings happen maliciously, and ought to be subject to penalty. I'm still a fan of "three strikes", although there are probably enough willing judges, that they'd never have to use up their allotment.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 01-04-2026).]

never mind how corrupt that black guy on the supreme court Mr vaca and motor homer
or the others who vote party line every time for under the table bribes never mind the law

btw how many billions has the rump scammed crypto is his big scam
your guy set records for massive corruption every day but MAGAt just cheer like he is winning
we see that winning as corruption disloyal to the nation for personal gain

the trump makes nixon look like a saint as he is 100% a crook stealing everything in sight

You do you, rayb......you're in a class by yourself.

It is an abuse of power. District court judges have limited jurisdiction. Congress defines what jurisdiction the district courts have. They are limited by their geological location, which is why there are districts to begin with. Taking up nationwide cases and issuing nation wide rulings is exceeding their authority. In many cases, Congress passed laws giving jurisdiction to courts in the executive branch such as immigration courts, tax courts and the Merit System Board (a court for federal personnel actions such as termination).

Look at how they have handled 2A cases and most cases in recent history. Rulings only applied to the district where the ruling was made. It is a well known unwritten rule that when there are different rulings in different districts, it was more likely that SCOTUS would take up the case to setting the district split.

These judges don't care about how things are traditionally done. They are issuing nation wide injunctions and IMO greatly exceeding their authority. SCOTUS or Congress need to take action to put an end to this. These judges that violate jurisdiction should be removed from the bench.

how about the million dollar BRIBES

rayb, do you even know or understand what you are posting?

I rarely speak for others, but I would be very surprised if anyone here knows what you are ranting about.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: I would be very surprised if anyone here knows what you are ranting about.

...or cares, for that matter.

quote Originally posted by Raydar: ...or cares, for that matter.

THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM

MAGAts DO NOT CARE ABOUT CORRUPT JUDGES OR THIER LEADER

CLARENCE THOMAS TAKES BRIBES IN THE FORM OF VACATIONS AND MOTOR HOMES WORTH MILLIONS

TRUMP STEALS BILLIONS BY SCAMS
THE CRYPTO SCAM MAKES HIM BILLIONS
MAGAtS DO NO CARE

No. Nobody cares about all your b!tching and whining about the "boogeyman".