Comment on Trump-backed bill to stop 'rogue' judges passes House
Archangel1313@lemm.ee 5 days agoExcept 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 days ago
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 4 days ago
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 day ago
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 12 hours ago
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?