The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on nationwide injunctions.
At 10:15 AM EST today the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the District Judges issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump policies. The focus will be on exploring legislative solutions to the bipartisan problem of universal injunctions. The Committee will question the following experts: John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Samuel Bray, who was previously the acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the chairman of the DOJ’s Regulatory Reform Task Force and vice chairman of the DOJ’s Task Force on Market Integrity and Consumer Fraud, as well as Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts at Georgetown University Law Center Stephen I. Vladeck.
Chairman Grassley will also introduce a bill limiting district judges' authority to their districts and they must allow for quick appeals when they do issue injunctions. Similar bills have been introduced by Grassley's GOP colleagues in both the Senate and House, it is unclear whether the issue will get floor votes, as it would need to amass more than 60 votes in the upper chamber to beat the filibuster and democrats are almost certain to fall in line to oppose anything that would restrain the rogue radical judges.
The hearing, titled, "Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions," will be televised on C-Span.
In other news:
Judge Susan Crawford, a far-left candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, defeated her Conservative opponent Judge Brad Schimel, last night. Crawford’s win maintains the liberal majority on the court, which will almost certainly mean that the democrats will gerrymander the state in order to help democrats win House seats in the midterms. Elsewhere, two Trump-backed Republicans won special congressional elections in Florida, shoring up the party’s slim House majority.
Today is, in President Trump’s telling, “Liberation Day.” There will be a live event from the Rose Garden later, at which time we shall find out what kinds of tariffs will be set. They will go into effect immediately.
The U.N. accused Israel of killing 15 rescue workers as they tried to help civilians. Israel identified nine of the 15 "UN workers" as Palestinian militants. Israel’s defense minister said that the military will expand its operations in Gaza.
China recently practiced maneuvers off its southern coast using new, special barges. The vessels form a bridge that could land troops & weapons on Taiwan. Trump issued a warning.
Attorney General Pam Bondi directed prosecutors to seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione who is charged with killing the C.E.O. of UnitedHealthcare.
Republican House members thwarted an attempt by Speaker Mike Johnson, to kill a bipartisan measure that would let new parents in Congress vote by proxy. It was led by a female congresswoman who felt it was so important that important issues had to be postponed.
Senator Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, went on a 25-hour rant about his grievances with what Americans voted for.
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the news.
The talk of Baseball:
The Bronx Bombers now have torpedoes in their arsenal.
The New York Yankees officially launched the "t o rpedo bat" era over the weekend -- with multiple players using a modified baseball bat during the team’s historic offensive onslaught in its opening series of the 2025 season.
The wood of the bat is shifted from the barrel towards the batter's hands to create a custom sweet spot where contact is most frequently made. The reconfiguration gives the bat the shape of a torpedo -- or a bowling pin, which doesn't sound nearly as menacing or apropos.
Because the Yankees hit bombs with them.
Nine of their MLB record-tying 15 home runs hit in their first three games were used by five players using torpedo bats, including six of a franchise-record nine homers in Saturday's 20-9 rout over the Milwaukee Brewers.
What’s a torpedo bat? History of the Yankees’ controversial bats – NBC New York
You do not post the news. You post your VERSION of the news.
The price of eggs are terrible.
There are no versions. There are 7 stories listed. All News.
No nonsense from the Raw Story, or the Atlantic, or Le Monde. Just straight news.
Perhaps you should consider another store. Ours have dropped by a touch over $2.00 a dozen
Must have been coupon day. And the price of gas here is $4.70 a gallon. But let me guess, not trumps fault?
No yours. Trump does NOT control where you live. Here, it is $2.89
In central NC that's mid-grade.
Maybe in your part of the country. Here the prices are dropping. I think it's below $2 a dozen where I am.
Here in north Florida, eggs are about 6.50 per 18 and gas fluctuates between 2.89 and 3.22 almost every week.
Sounds like some of our leftists friends here need to move to a more price friendly environment.
Then what would they cry about?
Somebody should tell Booker that this is what the majority of American voters voted for. Nobody cares about his "grievances".
Booker like a few others, seems to think everyone thinks like he does.
I have a TBI but it's not severe enough to bring me down to that level.
Booker always seemed a bit off.
If I were a democrat, I'd say he has the type of issues they claim Lindsey Graham has. But since I'm not, I won't.
Does he still hang with his imaginary friend T-bone?
He's on his way to Biden levels of being "off".
I believe they watched Cory's favorite movie together: Spartacus.
They are all writing books now on him and how they hid his condition from the rest of us.
The latest is Pelosi & Obama wanted a primary election because they knew Harris was poison.
And they honestly think that they have any standing on anything.
To all too many: the ends justify the means.
All the reporters who assured gullible democrats that "Biden was sharp as a tack" now writing books about everyone knew he was a zombie. The sad part part is that so many Democrats will still believe what they report without questioning it.
Confirmation bias?
Could be worse, he cvould have read green eggs and ham for 25 hours.... Oh wait... Too soon?
He had his moment on page 1.
I'm pretty sure he would fuck that up.
This claim is a lie.
What's a plurality vs. a majority?
No it isn't a lie...........
So of all the states he won, he won by majority reflected in the EC count and therefore, a majority. Not to mention the popular vote
See, I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. You should research how elections work.
Did over 50% of American voters vote for Trump? That what you said.
What I said was:
See #2.2.2.
Rest in peace Val Kilmer .
He was 65 years old
Agreed... Great actor gone way too soon.
Did anyone catch this yesterday?
A fired federal worker tried to confront Senator Banks and he got what he deserved!
Banks does not know anything about this individual; saying he "probably deserved it" and calling him a "clown" is an asshole response. This is the tone that Trump has established.
Trump didn't establish it. People have always had that tone. It's just been drown out by the incessant crying of the left for the past few years.
Why is he asking Banks why his job was eliminated?
Should I tell him why?
The way Musk is handling this, you cannot possibly know that his job was eliminated for cause. And by the same token, Banks has no possible way of knowing that either. Saying that he was probably fired for cause because he looks like a clown is the kind of divisive, personal attack tone that Trump has promoted.
Banks was being an asshole based on no information.
There is only one "cause." The President is streamlining government, and it is within his purview to do it.
As usual, abstract away all the details until you find a level that is safe.
Of course reducing waste and fraud is a good thing and of course a PotUS has the power to do so.
But the way Musk/Trump are doing this is with broad hacks. It is quick and dirty and irresponsible. Thus there is no way for you or any Senator to know that this individual was fired for cause (i.e. poor performance, unnecessary, etc.).
The US government can no longer juice the economy with massive deficit spending.
hopefully his justice and punishment for abusing the constitution will be just as streamlined ...
How do you feel about it?
Are you kidding?? Do you actually believe that Trump is going to stop deficit spending?
What is he going to do, default on loans, cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? Defense? Not issue his tax cuts?
And you think this will become permanent?
Congress likes to spend. Even if Trump can cut some deficit spending, it will be temporary.
The way we get out of our financial problems is to grow the GDP. Trump is fucking that up too.
You are correct.
The first opportunity the next D Congress gets into office, he/she/they/them will go back to the old spending ways and the deficit will once again grow.
Partisan crap. Neither party is fiscally disciplined.
[✘] Other than that, do you agree with my statement?
“Banks does not know anything about this individual; saying he "probably deserved it" and calling him a "clown" is an asshole response.”
Hmmm, kinda reminds me of nt. Make a comment and get called a misogynist, nazi, fascist, partisan, racist, etc.
If someone makes a misogynist comment, for example, they should not be surprised if they are called out for it.
[deleted][✘]
mi·sog·y·nist
A truly stupid denial.
The most recent misogynistic language was within comments and arguments made about Harris being a whore who was not successful on her merits but rather through her sexual parts.
Explain to us all how assuming that someone who graduates law school with a JD, passed the California bar (a difficult bar exam), worked as a prosecuting attorney, become district attorney of San Francisco, twice elected as Attorney General of California, elected to the Senate to represent California, elected as VP, and nominated for PotUS did all this without merit but rather through sexual favors.
Then explain how that assumption about someone with such an impressive resume is not an implicit demeaning of every successful woman.
A personal perception and, in a lot of cases, over-interpreted by those who feel the need for self-assigned perpetual moral superiority, better known as virtue signaling
And all because you don't fall in lockstep with somebody else. And it always comes from the same people?
Call an accomplished individual like Harris a whore whose accomplishments are a result of sexual favors and your comment will be called out. That is not virtue signaling, it is basic decency and fairness.
It takes an epic level of disconnect to think a person like Harris's career wasn't advanced by her relationships with powerful men.
Like so many other words, the left has tried to hijack this one to fit their needs. You are not allowed to say a negative word about a woman, any woman without being misogynistic against all women. That must be the case since the left tried to sell you it is one of the main reason Hillary (and probably Harris) lost their elections and has only gotten worse since.
That is an entirely different statement than your prior comments labeling Harris a whore.
Your current comment applies to everyone who has reached a high career position. For example, every President and VP in the USA benefited career wise by relationships with powerful men (and women). That is basic networking and is essential in politics and business.
Let's see you pen the normal comments you have made about Harris where you describe her as a whore.
Another stupid whiny generalization.
Bullshit. Entirely dishonest. The correct statement is that if one calls an accomplished woman a whore (or equivalent) claiming that her accomplishments were not based on merit but rather the use of her sex and no evidence exists to support that claim, that is implicitly demeaning all women with the assumption that if one is an accomplished woman it was necessarily a result of sleeping her way to the top.
Not for most rational people
And with that I am through.
The dictionary disagrees with your opinion. Negative comments about harris are just that, about harris, and only harris, not ALL women, or even some women. It’d be a good idea to realign definitions of words with the actual definition rather than making one up.
No, you are just playing a stupid game of narrow interpretation.
I already explained how assuming without evidence that one successful woman slept her way to the top implicitly demeans all women. After all, what is the claim based on other than Harris being a woman who is successful?
In super simple terms:
KNOWN:
THEREFORE:
This implicitly argues that any successful woman necessarily slept her way to the top.
If you do not see the prejudice against women, that is your failure to apply basic logic. Especially when the argument labels Harris a whore.
Nowhere in your posts do they insinuate you mean all women.
Using the same "logic", one can successfully argue that by calling one Trump supporter a nazi, then it is insinuated that all Trump supporters are nazis.
Liberal changing of definitions to fit their narrative is stupid and bullshit.
That is not even remotely close to the same logic. Good grief man, buy a vowel.
I’m not playing any games, i’m using the ACTUAL definition found in a dictionary. The only game being played is you trying to insert your own faulty definition.
“THEREFORE“
The actual definition, not some made up bullshit, “implicitly argues that any” negative comments about harris, for example, are about her and her alone.
Exactly the way I took it. I would tend to take what you said the way you said you meant it.
It seems you are playing a stupid game of trying to put a meaning to the words that the author obviously did not mean by calling it "implicit "
That is total dishonest bullshit.
Obviously
Exactly
Constantly.
Pretty clear since you used the name Harris in your post.
You want us to believe that you do not understand how implied meaning works.
Okay, let's go to an external source to provide an example on the chance that you honestly do not understand how this works. The concept is making a prejudicial comment about a woman based only on a single, irrelevant fact about her.
ChatGPT offers this example:
So now let's go back to using Harris as the example. A strong example of implied misogyny would be:
Harris' success is only because she slept her way to the top.
If you still do not understand, then you need to go do your own research.
Here’s another external source from Merriam-Webster,
misogyny
noun
Spend less time trying to look like you are correct and more time learning / researching so that you will be correct.
Prejudice against women is the key phrase in your definitions. Don't just ignore that phrase. Attempt to understand what that really means and then look at the explanation and supporting examples that I have provided and then what ChatGPT (consistently) provided.
Your refusal to learn from this is on you.
Here’s a thought, make up a new word and assign your faulty opinion as the definition of that new, made up word.
1. I don't don't care what anyone believes
2. You seem to want people to believe what you say what someone implied even though they have made it clear they were specifically talking about one person and any "implied" meaning is incorrect.
3. I will (and any reasonable person) believe the person that made the comment, not someone that tries to put more meaning into the comment to try and make a ridiculous point.
Learn what? That he didn't mean what he said? That he thought his comment was abut the person he said it was and in reality his comment was about all women even though he specifically said it was not?
You et al are welcome to interpret his comment any way you wish for whatever reason you wish. Most people will try to interpret it the way he says he meant it.
ChatGPT and I both independently gave equivalent examples and you still keep shaking your head in denial.
Look what Google AI offers (yet another independent explanation with examples):
And of course, she is only successful because she slept her way to the top.
You refuse to do even the most basic research on this. I am providing you explanations and examples and you just keep ignoring them.
Explain how this does not apply to all successful women:
Given a woman X who is successful, someone claims with no evidence: "X slept her way to the top."
Given the only factors are that X is a woman and is successful, this implies that any woman who is successful slept her way to the top.
Both ChatGPT and Google AI explain this well with examples. You keep refusing to learn.
X is Kamala Harris as has been explained to you several times.
Looks like you are now just typing anything that comes to mind.
You posted a dishonest non sequitur ... complete nonsense.
When you have no argument and have been shown to be utterly wrong, it is better to not reply rather than post ridiculous nonsense like @4.1.44
You are ignoring his actual comment and trying to give it some meaning he didn't intend. Give it up, you lost.
I really appreciate you trying to help me but i don’t need any help. I know what the definition of misogyny is, and i know that when i make a negative comment about A woman i am making the comment about THAT WOMAN, not other, or all women.
It is the EXACT same logic. Because you don't want to see that is not a problem I have.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
[✘]
From whatever source you used, to wit....
"It doesn't overtly insult women, but suggests that a woman can’t earn success without using her looks or charm"
Notice it says A woman, meaning the woman used in your example. If it was to imply what you are failing to prove, the sentence would read like this....
It doesn't overtly insult women, but suggests that WOMEN can’t earn success without using THIER looks or charm
Your argument is bullshit.
You do not understand that the phrase 'a woman' is equivalent to 'women' as stated? That one can refer to women in general by using generic singular (e.g. 'a woman') grammar?
I am not going to spend time teaching basic English. Look it up yourself. Learn how the English language is used and maybe you will understand how confused your post is.
A Trump supporter will tend to defend Trump at all costs.
Is this claim about Trump supporters in general or about a particular Trump supporter? If it is about a particular Trump supporter, name the individual.
You confused the form yet again.
The correct example would be to name a particular Jewish person a baby killer merely because the person is Jewish. That, then, would be equivalent to all Jews are baby killers.
That's good because no one asked you to.
Especially when you continue to be wrong.
I fed your argument (above) to ChatGPT in order to get a technical analysis. This is what it wrote:
In short, your 'argument' is flawed exactly as I noted.
I fed your above 'argument' to ChatGPT to get a technical critique:
Yeah, I would say ChatGPT has nailed it.
Trump keeps trying to violate the law and push past the limits of his powers. Of course the result of that will be injunctions.
The only real question is on process. Trump may lose when it comes to allowing for due process for non-citizens, but he should win on everything else.
In today's hearing I hope people will see what is lacking in the district court setup. These injunctions should not go beyond districts, they should be based on a plaintiff's complaint and there should not be any delay in the appeal process. That being said, it really can't be corrected by congress because of the 60-vote majority needed in the Senate.
That means John Roberts must hear the cases that are coming to the SCOTUS. There are 3 there now. They should go right to the top of the list.
You think a PotUS should have the power to remove jus soli??
That a PotUS can categorically pause Congressional approved funding??
Violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is breaking the law.
Yes, non-citizens should not have the same rights as citizens. That is my opinion. The Court needs to rule
That a PotUS can categorically pause Congressional approved funding??
You mean like the money that should have been spent on the wall?
Here is the BIG QUESTION:
Does a district judge have the authority to issue a national injunction?
Only the SCOTUS can straighten that out.
We'll have to wait and see how it all works out. In the last term, Democrats were rather angry with Republicans for judge shopping and nationwide injunctions enough that they talked about legislation to limit judges. This term those same Democrats are rather quiet.
Neither side will ever get the required votes to fix the district judge monster they created. That means that John Roberts can't wait for cogress. He must act!
It does not matter what you want, Vic, this is a constitutional right and a PotUS does not have the authority to stop it.
Deflection.
Yes from Article III and legal precedent. This ends if the SCotUS interprets Article III more narrowly than it has in the past.
It very well may be. It and it likely will be one of the few victories the district judges get. As I said it is the process they can win on but not on the policies an elected President is allowed. Are you aware of how many nationwide injunctions have been issued? I expect them to lose the vast majority of them and if it comes down to it, the SCOTUS may have to decide if they have any authority beyond their districts.
Deflection.
No, you were silent when Biden refused to spend money that was appropriated for the wall. He was even selling wall at ridiculously low rates.
Yes from Article III and legal precedent.
Show us specifically. Even Justice Kagan said they have no such authority.
Everyone, bar none, should have the same rights as every other person, no matter who they are, where they are, or where they are from.
You mean residents should have the same rights as citizens.
As I was just told, It does not matter what you want, it only matters what the Constitution says.
That's a core belief of the open borders crowd. Citizenship, and being an American in America is essentially meaningless to them,.
Article III please
Jus soli is a constitutional right. Period. Trump has no authority to stop it.
I already commented on the injunctions. Some should hold, others likely will be stopped. Regardless, the reason for the injunctions is that Trump continues to push past the limits of his power. So naturally there will be resistance.
You do not have any idea what I wrote regarding the wall appropriations so stop with the lame tactics and deal with the facts. A PotUS does NOT have the power to categorically deny payment for congressional approved programs.
You can read Article III yourself and you can research the legal precedent that has been established. Nationwide injunctions by lower courts are in effect until the SCotUS stops them.
It is a core belief of everyone who actually gives a shit about others.
I already have. Where is the part about district judges, who DID NOT EXIST when Article III was written?
Nationwide injunctions by lower courts
They have no legal authority and Justice Kagen said so.
I'll be back in a bit. Hopefully you can back up that claim about Article III.
Correct, jus soli (birthright citizenship) is a constitutional right.
No, Vic, I am not going to do basic research for you; I pointed you to Article III and informed you of the legal precedent. If you think that the legal precedent of lower court national injunctions is illegal then demonstrate it.
Not if you come here illegal.
If you don't care about our laws concerning immigration, we should dismiss you and return the favor.
Bingo!!
Everyone, all the time has right due to being a living person.
And there you have it, folks: Reactionaries one step away from banishment.
Is it any wonder that the thinking individuals of the country are aghast at the current administration and it's flunky's?
Not those humans who sneak into a sovereign country illegally.
"Reactionaries one step away from banishment."
Leftists love to use words they have no idea what they mean (reactionary), however, yes, banishment is a good word to use when illegals get thrown out of the country.
What country in this world will let you stay in their country, claim free stuff and not be subject to their laws?
"Is it any wonder that the thinking individuals of the country are aghast at the current administration and it's flunky's? "
The ones that are aghast are those that see leftists insisting that we, as an entire country, accept illegals with open arms, but absolutely refuse to take come of them into their own homes to take financial burden off the taxpayer. How many illegals are living in your home rent free?
What is it these "flunky's"own. Possibly it is the flunkies from the past administration?
They have, long ago, if you are on American soil, you are protected and held accountable to it's laws. Period.
One for the dems. And about 69 for Trump.
Not at the same level as legal migrants and citizens.
Yes, exactly the same rights as the Supreme Court long ago ruled it so! It is settled law. All criminals have the exact same rights until proven guilty in a court of law in American courts. This includes non citizens. Equal justice is not a sliding scale.
Perhaps you should consult a legitimate source, as the one you use is wrong....to wit...
"However, immigrants’ presence in the US is generally considered to be a “privilege” rather than a right and can be revoked for certain reasons laid out in federal law, such as a serious crime."
What rights do immigrants have, and what do they not have? | CNN
Undocumented immigrants do NOT have right to most public subsidies
Besides emergency care and education, undocumented immigrants do not have a right to receive most public subsidies like Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, and Social Security. In fact, Obamacare has an explicit prohibition against providing federally-subsidized coverage to immigrants who are here illegally.
Undocumented immigrants do NOT have right to vote
Undocumented immigrants living in the United States do not have a right to vote, and all states make it a crime to vote illegally. For example, earlier this year, a Texas woman was convicted after it was discovered she voted in five U.S. elections despite not being a citizen of the United States. Here’s an interesting little tidbit though: last year, the U..S Supreme Court ruled that undocumented immigrants CAN be counted up when states draw up legislative districts.
Do Illegal Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights? | Law & Crime
So, I am correct. Illegals do not have the same rights as legal migrants and citizens. Even legal migrants do not have the same privileges as citizens, as per the CNN article.
Due process is required to show they have committed that crime. Trump has removed their due process. PLUS , how many " LEGAL " migrants and AMERICAN CITIZENS has ICE rounded up and deported because they were denied due process?
Migrants in U.S. legally and with no criminal history caught up in Trump crackdown
Some Americans Have Already Been Caught in Trump’s Immigration Dragnet. More Will Be.
Pro Publica and PBS used as sources....
Yea..they are to be trusted s/
So refute them with your own sources.
You can't, can you????
How do you refute something when absolutely no one else reported what you used?
You know I was talking about "in American courts of law", right?
We are not talking about welfare or voting. We're talking justice!
I provided links to reports. You provide NOTHING.
The links you provided were to sources that are well known to lean far left, so anything they report is suspect.
There is no way you can prove the people in the articles are real. Moe\re than likely made up.
See 5.1.32 for your answer too.
It's a planned Judgesurrection. They couldn't get Trump with impeachment bullshit this time around so they let the courts decide what is and isn't and it is all bluster due to the fact they see Trump getting things done and once again, they feel the need to tell those who wanted this and elected the man to get it done, by using the judiciary to hammer him—just like term one. One has to wonder if they think this is really a good idea and the way to start the "he hurt my fellings" campaign.
Trump is a disaster. You, et. al. will eventually be forced to recognize this when the effects impact you personally. In the meantime, it is rather pathetic to see people attempt to defend the acts of this loose-cannon, vindictive buffoon.
Thank God I don't live in your world.
“One has to wonder…”
…how some continue to defend and condone the abuse of the office in every aspect of constitutional, judicial, economic and moral terms.
Tomes will be written about this aberration and how the cultists came to believe in the open contempt for our democracy.
"…how some continue to defend and condone the abuse of the office in every aspect of constitutional, judicial, economic and moral terms."
And yet they can't find any examples of this alleged abuse.
Actually, Trump was elected to clean up the Dems corruption, treachery, and malfeasance.
We routinely call out the abuse (e.g. 5.1.1 and beyond). How ridiculous for you to pretend that you never read examples.
My world will be hurt by the stock market and interest rates. Happily prices are not as much of a concern for me personally. But I am very concerned about the majority of my fellow Americans regarding prices. Trump is unnecessarily hurting millions of people and he does not give a shit. Apparently many of his supporters do not care either. But I predict they will when they start feeling the financial pressure.
List them...
Same old nuh-uh bullshit ... 'there is no evidence'. Get real, you are not fooling anyone by pretending that Trump has not abused his powers. Trump targeted specific firms and threatened them if they do not meet his demands? You do not see the abuse?? You do not see Trump refusing to pay for congressionally approved spending? You do not see him firing inspectors general, targeting DoJ individuals who worked on his cases, etc.?
No evidence, it's a witch hunt, fake news....blah blah blah.
Breaking: Eric Adams corruption case dismissed by federal judge.
Judge dismisses corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams
Once the DOJ declines to prosecute it should be a no-brainer for a Federal Judge.
Hearings? Why didn't MAGA Congress critters learn about checks and balances and the separation of power in 5th Grade like everyone else?
The question is where did the left learn about justice?
Please show us the part about "district judges" in the Constitution.
Meh, two sides of the same coin.
Same reason Democrats don't learn about the Constitution or the difference between federal laws and state laws.
That it is illegal to weaponize the IRS, FBI, CIA, and DOJ against your political opponents.
That federal district judges cannot enforce federal laws beyond their assigned districts.
That all laws either apply to everyone equally or no one.
That no one believes their "Mostly peaceful protest" BS.
Final thoughts:
In the morning segment of this article, I had someone make a claim that the district court system was covered under Article III of the Constitution. I asked that individual to show us specifically where. He refused, stating that it was my job to research his claim. Let me address that first. The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified the following year in 1788. Article III as we all know simply allots a degree of power to the Judicial branch of government.
The District Court system was created by congress with the first District Court originating in New York in November of 1789. The District Court judges aren't much more than trial judges or lawyers with robes. Their authority is understood to cover their districts, not the nation. The problem is that during the Obama years Senate democrats changed the rules in order to get a lot of radical ideologues confirmed to various courts. Otherwise, many of them would never have been confirmed. Those are primarily the judges issuing nationwide injunctions. Today congress can't fix the mess because the congress is deeply ideologically divided and adding the proper guardrails to the District Court system is now impossible.
The left has used these judges to resist Trump policies. John Roberts really doesn't want to hear these cases, but he will have to. I expect the rogue judges to win the due process injunction, which I already to another individual in the morning segment. All the many other injunctions I expect to go the President's way. Unfortunately, there isn't a requirement for a timely appeals process in this mess, but justice will prevail at the SCOTUS over lawfare.
I told you that the authority for a district court to issue injunctions is in Article III of the constitution. You seem to think that the CotUS spells out every little detail and that district courts had to exist prior to Amendment III for it to apply. No, wrong. I also told you that it was a long standing legal precedent. And that is the key.
That is how law works, Vic. Legal precedent is the guideline for what is legal. Thus by legal precedent based on the constitutional authority as Article III has been interpreted, district courts can (have, and do) issue national injunctions.
This would have to be changed by the SCotUS offering a different interpretation.
There is nothing else needed for my argument. You, however, need to make an argument that the precedent does not exist. Apparently you cannot do so so you post the crap @9.
Show me where the legal precedent does not exist. You cannot. You have no argument.
I think Senator Kennedy has the best take on this issue....
THIS! Sen. John Kennedy Throws YUGE Wrench Into Fed. District Courts Trying to BLOCK Trump Admin (Watch) – Twitchy
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on nationwide injunctions.
MAGA-speak for, Trump cronies in Senate want to please the master