Anonymous #1 13w

Basically the supreme court said only they themselves can block something nationwide

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Yes. Now, what is wrong with that action.

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

Reduces checks and balances (certainly doesn’t help that like Trump, SCOTUS is conservative)

2

Anonymous #1 13w

They a bunch of hoes

3

Anonymous #2 13w

Which check or balance that was previously in place has been removed or changed.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Also the SCOTUS has ruled against trump in the past, as recently as April

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

the power of a non-SCOTUS court to block something…?

7

Anonymous OP 13w

Cool. So, you have no business being involved in this conversation.

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

That’s good but doesn’t take away from the concern

3

Anonymous #1 13w

Ill try: so basically, if trump passes an EO that is illegal, he can keep doing that illegal thing until SCOTUS tells him not to, rather than a lower court having him pause doing that thing until SCOTUS hears it Lmk if im wrong

2

Anonymous #2 13w

Okay so let me explain. The court has ruled federal judges do not have the jurisdiction to issue national injunctions. Which they shouldn’t have had the authority to do. They can still file injunctions for their district, and can still sue for their district, but cannot take national action, which they lack the authority and jurisdiction for. The court reaffirmed they alone can overturn the executive, and issue a national order.

-2

Anonymous #3 13w

Okay just so I don’t retype all that read the comment below

0

Anonymous #1 13w

This is a very well-formed description! I still don’t trust SCOTUS to consistently rule against Trump when needed, but at least the ruling is based on a solid foundation

8

Anonymous #2 13w

(assuming their rationale was your rationale)

3

Anonymous #2 13w

Thank you, that’s a fair enough concern, the court has ruled against trump in the past, as recently as April. Don’t let the politicization of this overshadow the facts for fear mongering

0

Anonymous #1 13w

yeah i understand they ruled against Trump in April but I doubt they’ll be consistent So the real question is: can SCOTUS be trusted to consistently rule against Trump? Hopefully so

3

Anonymous #2 13w

There’s no reason to think they won’t. He appointed 3 of them, but they are as close to incorruptible as you can be in three US, and their decisions are always based on the law and the constitution. There hasn’t been an egregious scotus decision in aware of in my lifetime. The last would probably be the 2000 election, but I’m not a lawyer yet lol, so don’t take my word for that

-2

Anonymous #1 13w

if this thread’s any indication, you’ll be a great lawyer!!

2

Anonymous #2 13w

(i am nowhere near a lawyer lol)

1

Anonymous #2 13w

😊 much appreciated, glad I could clarify this for you

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Okay my second reply definitely deserves the downvotes but why is my first reply getting downvoted 😭😭😭

2

Anonymous #1 13w

The jurisdiction of federal courts is literally the entire country you idiot. ThTs why they are “federal” courts. They have districts for the purpose of organizing what cases get done where. This ruling is blatantly incorrect, it’s just a power grab by the openly bribe taking SC.

3

Anonymous #5 13w

Oh boy.

0

Anonymous #2 13w

it isn’t. they’ve effective abolished federal courts by removing their entire purpose.

3

Anonymous #5 13w

Does the federal judiciary have the power to pass laws?

0

Anonymous #1 13w

Lmao this court almost exclusively makes egregious, far right rulings. For fucks sake two of them openly take bribes from people with business before the court.

2

Anonymous #5 13w

Neither of those responded to my question. Does the federal judiciary have the power to make or pass laws.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

So if trump does something illegal and the act cant be paused for months because SCOTUS hasnt voted on it, we should let that illegal action continue?

5

Anonymous #3 13w

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about SCOTUS can review all actions that may or may not be in breach of the constitution. You’d need to wait anyway???? Becasue a federal judge doesn’t have the power to compel the president to take or not take a certain action

-1

Anonymous #5 13w

The answer is no. It does not. This court decision has changed nothing. It asserted that a federal judge has jurisdiction over their district and not beyond it.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

So this ruling doesnt actually effect illegal executive orders and is only about lower courts deciding stuff for everyone in the nation? Thanks for providing the info btw

3

Anonymous #3 13w

Yes. This is the precedent; “the federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. The Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) implied, and later cases confirmed, that federal courts also possess authority to review the actions of the executive branch.”

0

Anonymous #1 13w

this literally proves that the SC ruling was wrong and that federal courts can in fact stop Trump from doing unconstitutional things.

3

Anonymous #5 13w

Yes. Not nationally. Becasue a federal court does not have jurisdiction over the nation. They have power over their federal district

0

Anonymous #5 13w

The court reasserted the hierarchy of the federal judiciary. They did not take away a power from the federal courts.

0

Not necessarily. That case determined that there were specific grounds you could fire agency heads on. Becasue FDR wanted to fire the FTC chair to pass the new deal. Thank you for actually citing a case though

1

No, but I don’t think it should be a chartered company either

0

Becasue the government should have more control over its currency. The fact we don’t have a central bank is stupid, aside from the fact that a central bank (properly structured) could basically ensure we never have debt again

1

Not executive oversight, congressional oversight. It should be incorporated into the department of treasury for congressional review. Congress already appoints the FED chairman. Why are you asking about the FED btw? The original case was about the FTC Federal trade commission. Are you just curious about FED?

1

What? Rule In favor of him on what case?

0

???? The case that YOU cited Humphrey’s executor v. United States is a case from the 40’s. Not a current SC case.

0

Oh. I mean that’s not a case infront of the SC. It might not ever get that far, trump cited Humphreys executor v us so I doubt it will get to the us. As for the FED chair, trump could fire them now just with the precedent that already exists. He doesnr need another case to do that

0

Wait that’s wrong

1

The fed chair does not serve at the pleasure of the president. Meaning they cannot be dismissed at the will of the oresident

1

I believe that’s an issue for Congress to address, not one for the Supreme Court

0