this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025

30 points (91.7% liked)

News And Current Events

153 readers

46 users here now

For everything that is in the news and what's going on in the world.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Alice@hilariouschaos.com

Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com

airrow@hilariouschaos.com

Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House (www.foxnews.com)

submitted 5 days ago by Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com to c/news@hilariouschaos.com

17 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday to limit federal district judges' ability to affect Trump administration policies on a national scale.

The No Rogue Rulings Act, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., passed the House and limits district courts' power to issue U.S.-wide injunctions, instead forcing them to focus their scope on the parties directly affected in most cases.

All but one Republican lawmaker voted for the bill, which passed 219 to 213. No Democrats voted in favor.

The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander-in-chief took office, targeting a wide range of President Donald Trump's policies, from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Congress has no authority to pass legislation that contradicts the Constitution. The Judiciary is a check on presidential authority. Period.

[+] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com -6 points 5 days ago (2 children)

And that still exists. It is merely the case that SCOTUS will have to check Federal power laws, and that the whole system doesn't get torpedoed by a single Federal circuit judge making a single ruling on a case that may not even be 100% related to the bulk of what the policy is designed to do.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com -4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

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.

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?

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemm.ee 1 points 18 hours ago

"It has already been established before that rights reserved for US citizens do not exist in the same way for aliens."

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".

"They should identify the potential conflict and, based on that, potentially hold what's going on."

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.

"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."

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.

[–] DonaldJMusk@lemmy.today -1 points 5 days ago

Good points.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago

Every Republican is a traitor. Every single one.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Democrats can choose to start physically impending the legislative process whenever they feel like pushing back against the coup.

I keep watching the Neoliberals, and for some reason they aren't doing anything that STOPS what is happening.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

They might consider doing it eventually. I suspect the heat death of the universe will come first, though.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago

That is the least efficient way to do it so, it seems on brand.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Will this new law also apply in Western District of Texas, Amarillo Division?