The Democrats are doing what they do best. Projecting while yesterday’s last-day drop of US Supreme Court decisions had most right-of-center court watchers relieved. Amy Comey Barrett upped her street cred by dissing dopey Judicial “peer’ Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the day couldn’t get much better after that.
Schools can’t force kids to participate in taxpayer-funded grooming (Muslims in particular protested the lack of an opt-out, so use that on the socials if you encounter a moonbat). There were others, but the best was that the District courts got their national injunction wings clipped.
“[T]he Judiciary Act of 1789 does not authorize district courts to issue nationwide injunctions because such relief lacks any founding-era analogue.”
I wrote a breaking piece on this when the decision dropped. No more judge shopping for injunctions with a force of law outside that court’s jurisdiction. They’ll still do it, so large liberal cities that want to slow things down can still exercise that right; however, they’ll have to do it many more times, but here’s the rub. SCOTUS didn’t do it for Trump. They just did it. That’s how separation of powers works.
Unlike the Democratic party super delegates or the party leadership, who ignore primary voters and pick candidates they want, this decision works for your presidential nominee, if and when your appointee wins the office.
Those meddling bastards on the right won’t be able to get a local judge to lock up or lock down your king’s commands. They’ll have to go through the same arduous legal process of filing suit, making a case, and attempting to demonstrate how the thing, whatever it is, violates a law or is unconstitutional.
Crazy talk but not so much when the same people were uppity about National Injunctions against President Auto Pen. And if we’re talking about the law and separation of powers, well, everyone benefits when it’s their turn and a significant unaddressed violation of liberty and democracy has been corrected.
As Justice Barrett observed from the first sentence of her order, nothing in the Constitution or federal statute empowers district courts to override the Executive Branch in this particular way. In concurrence, Justice Thomas pointed out that, even in the same district, one judge’s orders are not binding on any other judge in that district— so how could national injunctions magically bind judges in other districts?
Today’s decision only underscores the need for rigorous and evenhanded enforcement of third-party-standing limitations. The Court holds today that injunctive relief should generally extend only to the suing plaintiff. See ante, at 16–17. That will have the salutary effect of bringing an end to the practice of runaway “universal” injunctions, but it leaves other questions unanswered. Perhaps most important, when a State brings a suit to vindicate the rights of individual residents and then procures injunctive relief, does the injunction bind the defendant with respect to all residents of that State? If so, States will have every incentive to bring third-party suits on behalf of their residents to obtain a broader scope of equitable relief than any individual resident could procure in his own suit. Left unchecked, the practice of reflexive state third-party standing will undermine today’s decision as a practical matter.
Justice Thomas observes that the decision does not address a handful of loopholes that could be as easily abused as nationwide injunctions to achieve state-wide or national equivalents. He did, however, warn them off, reminding them that there are rules in place they’d best follow to prevent that abuse and ensure any actual nationwide class had a legitimate case.
Oh, and you can still bring your cases, but just for the individual in question or whoever is involved win that situation.
All in all, though, it was a good day, and I’ll understand if you don’t like how the government was formed or don’t “get” what a Constitutional Republic is. It may not be your fault. Long before you could make the same mistakes with your vote, you were denied the sort of education that would make this easier for you. The courts are there to consider lawsuits against actions, public and private. They will, at times, be asked to determine if a state or local government has infringed on a natural right enumerated in a State or Federal Constitution. But it is the Legislative Branch’s job to contain the Executive if they are, in fact, overreaching.
The Courts can say no-no to a President, but have no power to enforce that. Zero. It is Congress that investigates, oversees, and, if needed, constrains the Executive branch and *indeed!) The judiciary. You ought to know this. Democrats abused that power repeatedly during Trump 1.0. And maybe this Congress will find the wind to lift those wings, or not, which includes refusing to embed into law the things Trump seeks, leaving them open to legal challenges, which will continue and are numerous, but no longer enjoin the entire nation.
Mr. Trump is, after all, doing something they hate. He is trying to take the power handed to the office of the Executive, shrinking it, and making Congress and the states take some of it back.
He’s not only a lousy Nazi, he’s a terrible king.
