this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
28 points (86.8% liked)
News And Current Events
163 readers
8 users here now
For everything that is in the news and what's going on in the world.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except that's how the entire judicial system works. Saying that a lower court has no jurisdiction to make a ruling, undermines that entire system, since every new case begins in the lower courts. A ruling like this, would effectively make it impossible to bring any case against the federal government, since the starting point for litigation would now be considered invalid.
They still have a jurisdiction to make a ruling, but not one that pauses the entire federal act when it is clear it will be appealed up to SCOTUS.
So the idea would be that a court with jurisdiction in California can make a ruling which applies to stopping a single Californian in unique circumstances from being deported under the specific law, but this cannot completely destroy the totality of the law.
And, just as we've seen, some of these rulings that would have crippled the government's ability to remove violent criminals from society do go to SCOTUS and SCOTUS sides with the law.
They're working out the kinks in the system.
There are no "kinks in the system".
The idea is that the law is the law, no matter which court is making the ruling. If the president is in violation of the Constitution, then any judge has the authority to stop it.
They can appeal that decision if they choose to, but it's not like there are some judges that are allowed to determine what's legal, and others that aren't. If the order is illegal, it should be stopped as soon as possible...not weeks or months later, when the Supreme Court finally gets involved.
But this is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court overrules these sorts of judgments with some regularity.
It is also logical to continue implementing the policies that would be unaffected by such a decision.
That process still needs to happen. You can't just assume what the final outcome is going to be, and just proceed as if it can't be challenged. That defeats the entire purpose of judicial review.
If there is even the slightest possibility that the order given, is in conflict with the Constitution...then allowing it to proceed at all, is also a violation of the Constitution. Putting that order on pause, until the review process can be completed...all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary...is the only logical option.
Or do you think it's fine to keep breaking the law for potentially months, until the Supreme Court can confirm what even the lowest courts were able to determine was illegal?
There is no question, though, that convicted illegal immigrants are deportable, and that people unlawfully residing in the US are deportable.
It has already been established before that rights reserved for US citizens do not exist in the same way for aliens. This doesn't just apply to things like voting and gun ownership, but even things like privacy - there isn't any requirement for digitally spying on foreign citizens, for instance. You need a judge to sign off on digitally snooping an American citizens' computer, but not for an alien.
They should identify the potential conflict and, based on that, potentially hold what's going on.
Just as such, if there was some fatal flaw or conflict of interest discovered with how a judge or detective conducted himself, it would not justify releasing all the connected criminals immediately. Rather, it would justify reviewing all these cases and then releasing people whom it was determined to have impacted.
Nope. That is not true at all. It is established law that the rights afforded by the Constitution apply to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. They are inalienable. That word has meaning. They don't necessarily apply to other countries, because those countries have their own laws...but inside the United States, the Constitution is the "law of the land".
That's literally what challenging these orders in court, does. If someone believes that a law or executive order is in violation of the Constitution, then they need to bring a challenge to court, and let a judge decide. The Judiciary's entire job is to rule on whether or not these things are "Constitutional" or not. And since you can't just bring a case before the Supreme Court without going through the lower courts first...that's where you start.
The lower court judge makes a ruling. If the administration wants to appeal that, then it goes up to the next higher court for their ruling. If you don't like their decision, you can appeal it again...all the way up to the Supreme Court. That's how it works.
And see, you've got this all wrong. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. The entire point of the justice system is to "review all these cases" individually, and a judge needs to sign off on whatever outcomes are decided, whether that's by jury or otherwise. But each case needs to be tried in court, and the sentence is decided there as well. The president doesn't have the legal authority to simply dictate a new punishment for them. All he has is the power to pardon someone...not to redefine their punishment. That is not his job.