Author Bio.

Supreme Court May End “Nationwide Injunctions”

Vice President Mike Pence announced on Wednesday in Washington at a Federalist Society conference, that the Trump Administration is seeking an appropriate case in which to ask the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions — usually imposed by “activist judges” similar to those found on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in which the Supreme Court has overturned more than 85% of those decisions.

Such orders have continually obstructed the President’s national agenda, interfering with his sworn oath of office as the “only” Chief Executive to make and institute policy.

For example, “activist judges” within the lower courts have hampered administration policy priorities on immigration, national security and health care.

“The Supreme Court of the United States must clarify that district judges can decide no more than the cases before them, and it’s imperative that we restore the historical tradition that district judges do not set policy for the whole nation,” Pence told the conservative lawyers group.

Adding, “In the days ahead, our administration will seek opportunities to put this question before the Supreme Court, to ensure that decisions affecting every American are made either by those elected to represent the American people or by the highest court in the land.”

Attorney General William Barr is also involved in the effort to find a suitable case in which to ask the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions. He believes these encourage lawyers to “shop around” for ideologically friendly judges, manufacture disputes within those friendly jurisdictions, and turn ordinary cases into “high noon emergences” empowering a single judge, and an unelected official, to set policy for the entire nation — which in effect undermines the entire legal process, moreover conflating those mandated (by law) in setting policy, and calling into question the separation of powers.

The idea behind “percolation,” is that the lower courts should struggle with their interpretation of the same law before the Supreme Court intervenes.

However, a legal dispute involving the potential of a nationwide injunction would not reach the high court on its own. Rather, the issue would come attached to the specific ongoing dispute, which needs first to be adjudicated.

For example, the President’s decision to strip sanctuary cities of federal funds, which immediately had progressive lawyers seeking “activist judges” seeking a nationwide injunction in stopping the Trump Administration dead-in-their-tracks. If the high court decided to take the case, they would first adjudicate the main dispute, before turning their attention to the nationwide injunction issue.

Both progressives and conservative lawyers use the legal loophole of nationwide injunctions thus circumventing a chief executives policy agenda, usually in the short term. Another example, however this one on the flip side of the ideological scale is when Republican State Attorney’s frustrated the Obama Administration’s transgender bathroom policy, thus blocking the former President’s agenda.

However the President isn’t only hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in his favor, he’s also installing a record number of federal judges to the bench, hoping to flip two appellate courts to majority Republican control by the end of 2019.

  1. Post Author


  2. Post Author

    CROOKS AT THEIR BEST SHIT. Trying to run things the conservative way

  3. Post Author

    Jefferson feared that the courts might become the ultimate arbiters of all matters in the country thus ending any real government of and by the people. He was right. People who answer to no one continue to make THEIR understanding not of what can be done but what SHOULD be done as the ultimate arbiter of all things. That’s called tyranny.

  4. Post Author

    This all sound well and good except for one thing – the Supreme Court is just as rotten to the core as all the other courts Trump is complaining about.

  5. Post Author

    About time!!!!

  6. Post Author

    Off the top of my head, there is at least one founder who would agree, and agree whole heartedly, with the principle of not letting one federal district court judge disrupt the entire nation with their decision. His thoughts were as follows:

    “On every question of construction, [let us] carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson.

    “One single object … [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” —Thomas Jefferson (1825)

    In writing to William Jarvis, Thomas Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    “The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Charles Hammond, August 18, 1821)

    “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

    “The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Wayles Eppes, 1807)

    “Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)

    “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

    “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet, and they are too well versed in English law to forget the maxim, ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem’ [good judges have ample jurisdiction]. . . . A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone, is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” -Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Dec. 25, 1820)

    And so on.

Leave a Reply