I wasn’t saying you were racist.
I was saying even if you were technically correct, the original poster was implying that now the supreme court is the only one who can make nationwide policy on stopping illegal nationwide federal actions.
although what you said was technically correct, in that federal appellate courts can overrule federal courts below them, it’s also still true that now only the supreme court can stop federal policy that is clearly illegal and the supreme court is extraordinary slow, as is the entire court system, and that the supreme court cherry picks the cases they want to hear.
there’s an illusion under us law that justice is fair but the reality is the ability of a court to decline to hear an issue means many unfair situations remain, and even when they are heard, it’s slow
i felt like what you were saying, while technically correct, missed the bigger picture and implied legitimization and process when that’s actually been extraordinarily damaged by limiting federal court judge remedy power
i wasn’t calling you racist, or disagreeing on ideological grounds, i was saying that your limited technical answer so grossly missed the larger situation that it undercut the actual legitimacy crisis that does and should exist for this branch. it is not business as usual, some of the conditions for these detainees are terrible and reminiscent of nazi-regime treatment of others, and the fact that nothing can be done about it at any federal level except at 1 court that refuses to hear most things and is extremely slow to hear matters means that it’s not the same situation as it once was
this is not ideological framing that muddies the waters. your narrow technical analysis nit-picking at the literal meaning and missing the implication is unintentionally or intentionally implying there’s still some legitimate functional system that is working correctly instead of something completely broken
mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 days ago
The original comment insinuated that only the Supreme Court has influence over national policy. Once again, that is factually incorrect.
Every federal court has authority within its own jurisdiction. If a federal court rules against an executive policy, that ruling has legal effect within that jurisdiction. Those decisions can also serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, even though they are not binding outside their circuit.
The difference is that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. That is part of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches.
The other examples you’re bringing up are unrelated to what I was actually saying. They don’t address the point I made.
I’m fully aware of the current state of the country and the ways the Supreme Court has shaped policy over the years.
I have no idea what the Jim Crow example was supposed to demonstrate, because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion.
The Supreme Court does not simply make policy on a whim. It decides cases based on the law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, and other applicable legal authority. When those decisions invalidate or uphold executive actions, they can have nationwide policy consequences.
I understand the implications of that. Those consequences can be beneficial or detrimental.
I’m not downplaying the current state of the country. I understand the concerns being raised.
What I corrected was a factually incorrect claim. There was no emotional context, political bias, or ideological argument in my comment. I simply corrected an inaccurate statement.
You’re adding a number of unrelated examples and arguments that don’t address my original point. I understand what you’re trying to say, and on some level I even agree with you. But it still has nothing to do with what I originally said.
someone@lemmy.today 3 days ago
I don’t know the answer to the following:
Is the current state of the law that a federal appellate judge can say “Okay, for this area of the country, I am issuing an injunction that ICE can no longer operate until they submit a report to a court monitor explaining corrective actions they will take and if anyone violates that order I will have us marshals arrest them?”
because i am under the impression that the new decision is they can’t do that. that it would be challenged immediately, the sc would against say you can’t issue blanket injunctions that impact federal policy, and nothing would occur.
i believe my unrelated examples were related, so we disagree. this isn’t a court briefing, this is the internet: unemotional and narrow language has no place here.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 days ago
You’re arguing a different issue than I am.
First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you’re going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
Third, I’m not interested in taking the conversation where you’re trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That’s a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn’t the one I was having.
Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn’t do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.