Enough's enough, Supremes — slap down delusional judges

About time.....................past time actually

If the SCOTUS does what the author wants now, what will the right wing populists do the next time the Dems take power?

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

I think this is a badly worded question as it seems to equate the kind of power each has. I do not believe this is the case. The president has power over one aspect of government, judges have power over another. It is not as if a count is trying to overrule a king. 

This isn't to say that there are not activist judges out there but I think it's wrong to put this in the light the article seems to put it, as it suggests to me that, by virtue of being president, a president can overrule the rule of law. No system is perfect. All of them get abused so, if these judges are acting in activist capacities, pretty much the only solution available is to go through the court system and let it work. Almost certainly, some of these suits are activist crap attempting to counter the president politically rather than legally but what can be done without destroying the whole system?

The only suggestion I can think of is that, when it comes to something like this, it must be processed through the courts as fast as possible, rather than drawing it out over years, which is probably the activists goal anyway. That, and lawyers racking up huge paychecks on the public dime. 

Oh, and if an activist judge can be shown to be an activist judge, that is, repeatedly handing down rulings which are consistently being overturned, then that should be grounds for dismissal of the judge.

Of course, people being people, that will get abused as well. 

During the first Trump administration, Kagan observed, activist groups "used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years they go to Texas" — "shopping" for a judge willing to issue a national injunction in line with the plaintiff's wishes.

Shopping for judges needs to be prohibited.  If they know the case can't be won, don't look for a POS partisan judge.  

One thing that is being overlooked is that these are DISTRICT judges.  Their rulings only apply to their DISTRICTS.  1stwarrior had stated it pretty well:

Absolutely amazing.  Wonder if the "judge" knows what the definition and responsibilities of a "District Federal Judge" are?

District - means just that.  The "honorable" judge is responsible for the "District" they were/authorized, by Congress.

District judges serve in 91 U.S. district courts across the country. They handle civil and criminal cases. A district court judge typically is responsible for supervising the pretrial process and conducting trials, which includes a variety of procedures including:

• managing the selection of juries and the instructions jurors receive throughout a trial;
• ruling on admission of evidence;
• pleas in criminal cases;
• resolving any issues surrounding the acceptance of the verdict and entry of judgment; and
• sentencing the defendant if a trial results in conviction.

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district of which there are 91. Each district covers one U.S. state or a portion of a state. There is at least one federal courthouse in each district, and many districts have more than one. District court decisions are appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which they reside, except for certain specialized cases that are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

District courts are courts of law, equity, and admiralty, and can hear both civil and criminal cases. But unlike U.S. state courts, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and can only hear cases that involve disputes between residents of different states, questions of federal law, or federal crimes.

Her "Honor" needs to understand that her decisions are based on their impact on HER DISTRICT - not of the entirety of the U.S.

3 

This is the legal principle of judicial review.   It is enabled by the CotuS:

Article III, Section 2:  “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States…”

Importantly, the principle of judicial review enabled by the CotUS has been identified specifically and has been in effect and supported since Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Judicial Review of Executive Orders Since the early days of the republic, 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 . As another essay in this series explains, that review frequently concerns the actions of administrative agencies, particularly since the early twentieth-century inception of the modern administrative state. On various occasions throughout history, and more frequently in modern times, the judiciary has also been called upon to assess the validity of formal directions the president has issued to executive branch agencies and officials, most commonly in the form of executive orders . Federal court review of executive orders helps to define the scope of presidential powers and serves as a significant aspect of the checks and balances woven into the American constitutional system. ...

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance. In some cases, it is not an executive order itself that is challenged in court, but instead a regulation promulgated pursuant to an order or the manner in which executive branch officials have interpreted an order. While many executive orders have been challenged on specific statutory and constitutional grounds, others have been subjected to “reasonableness review.” 

fjc

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge — one of nearly 700 — in a courthouse anywhere in the nation?

This is not about relative power, it is about the rule of law and constitutional checks & balances.   This complaint of relative power indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of a constitutional Republic and, in particular, our constitutional Republic.   We do not have a king or an emperor.   We have a president who has substantial powers but these powers are (at least in theory) checked — intentionally— by our constitutional framework.

It is an implied power, and they were very careful in Marbury v. Madison to be very narrow about it.

Quite a feeble rebuttal.   Terse and vague.

You are trying to ignore over 220 years of legal precedent.  

What this ... person is trying to say follows: 

Neener-neener boo-boo We won the election so we get to make all new rules and you cannot stop us.

Which, to a certain extent is true, but I am not sure how they are going to deal with the actual outcome of telling the American people that they can only think in one way.

It will be interesting to watch...

TiG - kinda a nice try - buttt - Marshall's opinion defines SCOTUS's powers in interpretation of the Constitution and does not place that jurisdiction with the "District Courts".

Marshall's opinion does not include allowing "District Courts" to make determinations as to whether or not an action by the Executive or Congressional body is constitutional or not.  That function, based on the Marbury case, is solely the providence of SCOTUS.

Flat out wrong.   You do not have the authority to impose your own interpretation on this opinion.   You do not get to require that lower courts be specifically called out for this to apply to them.   Your interpretation contradicts judicial precedent so by definition, you are wrong.

There are plenty of sources which prove you are wrong.   Here is one of them:

The doctrine of judicial review holds that the courts are vested with the authority to determine the legitimacy of the acts of the executive and the legislative branches of government. 

ojp

The decision in  Marbury v. Madison  established the principle of judicial review, or the Supreme Court’s authority to review acts of Congress and declare them void if inconsistent with the Constitution. The concept of judicial review, which gave the judiciary the ability to prevent Congress from exceeding its constitutional authority, helped to establish the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government on par with the executive and legislative branches. Judicial review also served to make the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions.

fjc .

TiG - there is so much in the legal language arena that I, personally, suggest that you not try to get involved unless you've had the teachings/training/experience in those fields.

JMHO

... there is so much in the legal language arena that I, personally, suggest that you not try to get involved unless you've had the teachings/training/experience in those fields.

You would be well advised to take your own advice.   I rely upon established precedent.  You, however, are operating as though you are a legal scholar and that you have the authority to contradict over 220 years of precedent.

Note:  ultimate arbiter does not mean only arbiter.   The SCotUS is the ultimate arbiter of legal matters too but that does not mean that lower courts cannot rule on cases.

Rely upon legal precedent and scholarship.

How exactly are they supposed to get to the SCotUS if not through the lower courts?

In '23 the SCotUS itself said that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had to go through the lower courts before it would deign to hear the case on Presidential immunity. This was seen by many as an attempt at running out the clock, and the subsequent verdict giving broad immunity to the President was seen by many, myself included, as going too far and greatly increasing presidential leeway with regard to actions. Certainly it has been seen by and will be used as a way to block the attempts to curb the current administration. 

The question now is: Will the Supreme court broaden his powers yet further by holding to the Unitary Executive Theory?

How exactly are they supposed to get to the SCotUS if not through the lower courts?

The concept and mechanics of Judicial Review are not even under debate.  It is well established legal precedent.   Courts (thus judges) have the legal authority to interpret the law even if that finds an Executive Order to be unlawful.

It is an essential element of the rule of law (rather than the rule of man).   Trump dislikes not having the rule of man.   He needs to be stopped.

The question now is: Will the Supreme court broaden his powers yet further by holding to the Unitary Executive Theory?

I suspect the SCotUS has realized that it has helped put a rogue PotUS in power.   That should influence their future decisions.   At least that is a logical hope.

He famously stated, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." (Quote of John Marshall provided by 1stWarrior)

This is what we are waiting to see: Will the SCotUS Pass, in effect saying that the rulings of the lower courts are the interpretation that should be followed as written, or will it take the cases on to provide its own interpretations.  

I suspect the SCotUS has realized that it has helped put a rogue PotUS in power.   That should influence their future decisions.   At least that is a logical hope.

The president is elected by millions

Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if everyone in the country voted for the same guy.

Who should have more power: the president of the United States, or a federal district judge

That’s not how this works. They represent different branches of government, each designed to check and balance the other. The district judge is not the last word from the judicial branch. The Supreme Court is.

Their role on the bench is generally limited to deciding the case before them based on existing law.

And that is how every case related to Trump’s actions or orders is proceeding.

Reyes is taking it upon herself to decide the issue for the entire nation

Impossible. The case - like all other cases - was brought by plaintiffs, who have a right (identified in the First Amendment to the Constitution) to seek a redress of grievances in the courts. Judges do not take cases upon themselves. Ever.

Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and co-founder of the Committee to Save Our City.

Maybe, but she writes like an ignorant, partisan whiner who skipped high school civics class.