Maybe when the GOP had the President, the House and the Senate they should have done something about Obamacare.

However, a judge in Hawaii should not have been able to stop the travel ban and a judge in Texas should not be able to stop Obamacare.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Do me a favor.... read up on filibuster and cloture. You may learn something.

Do me a favour. Learn how to spell favour.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

A good read. The law is above my paygrade but I'll go out on a limb and say I agree with their point. The class action remedy seems like it could work to replace. Tobacco and now opioids have been targeted effectively. The timeliness may be a bit slow and render the actions moot.

Federal laws or regulations that split citizens further down our current fault lines seem to be the source of contention. Write a fair and balanced law or executive order that some on each side can support and the problem goes away without lawyers and judges.

You have to admit the GOP has kinda given up. They made 2-3 half-hearted attempts, were mostly hindered by dissent in their own party (for which Trump apparently holds a grudge that not even death can lessen), and have now apparently given up, just picking at the edges rather than implementing a true "replacement."

I think the article is a little bit misleading, implying these courts are inappropriately "seizing" national power. The effects are "nationwide" because the regulations are nationwide. That's what "Federal" means. It makes no sense to strike down ObamaCare in one state, or change visa requirements at one state's airports. The courts are still Federal courts. Just because a court is in Texas doesn't mean it's a Texas state court. And it would be silly to immediately escalate any injunction attempt all the way to the Supreme Court or something because the Supreme Court sounds more "national."

That said clearly their should be some type of urgency to the issue to impose an injunction. The point is simply to pause the regulation until its legality can be resolved. Like the legality of travel bans was resolved, with a few modifications from the first attempt.

I think it's hard to argue that "ObamaCare" has that urgency, given it's been law for nearly 10 years, and litigated in the courts for pretty much that entire time, including all the way to the Supreme Court. And also it's law rather than executive order - courts tend to be a little more deferential to law than executive fiat (cue all the expletives at liberal justice Roberts. :)).

Look, Trump has a great plan to repeal and replace. It will be beautiful. Much better than ACA.

But you need to re-Elect Trump and give the House and Senate back to the GOP to get it.

Just do it.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Why bother with district and circuit courts then? You're position basically wants to eliminate them

I'm not sure how you got that. My position is basically that the status quo is just fine.

E.g. this is my line where I effectively say the lower courts are still needed:

Quote:

And it would be silly to immediately escalate any injunction attempt all the way to the Supreme Court or something because the Supreme Court sounds more "national."

I agree that abusing the notion of urgency is bad and "court shopping" is bad. But I'm not hyperventilating over either of those. I have some inherent trust in the legal process. I understand that there are "conservative" courts that may make decision I don't like. That's life.

It's ridiculous and it permits a federal judge to act outside the scope of his/her jurisdictional power.

A federal judge in Texas, for example, has absolutely, positively no jurisdiction over me whatsoever. None. So, how on earth can a ruling by said judge impact me? At best, the rule should only be applicable within that court's jurisdiction.

Several years ago, Act 10 passed in the State of Wisconsin and dramatically altered union rights throughout the state. A Dane County (Madison area) judge ruled the law violated the Wisconsin Constitution and ordered it halted. The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) took the position that ruling only applied within the borders of Dane County and continued to issue rulings in compliance with Act 10 in the remaining counties in the state. The Dane County court attempted to hold the head of the WERC in contempt, but, that ruling was ignored because said judge did not have jurisdiction over the head of the WERC. Basically, the WERC said the Dane County Judge could only operate in his kingdom and told him to pound sand outside of Dane County. The case eventually made it to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the lower court's ruling was tossed. Thus, the contempt claim went away before it could be decided.

I would love to see that happen at the federal level and let it go to SCOTUS.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Your position is illogical. An injunction should only be valid in the district of the court that issues it. If the 7th and 9th Circuit disagree guess which ruling holds the 7th's in thr 7th and the 9th's in the 9th and it eventually is petitioned to SCOTUS ans they usually accept because they don't like splits.

I'm not quite following what's illogical. The point of nation-wide injunctions is to handle disputes that are inherently national-wide in effect. Again, the travel ban. It would have been...illogical...to stop the travel ban only in Hawaii. There is no such thing as a Federal travel visa that only applies to one state or area. The district court can't fundamentally change what a visa is.



Sure. And the nation-wide injunction allows them to do so in an orderly, un-rushed fashion. The injunction can be overturned. Courts should be allowed to choose the path of litigation that may provide the minimum harm. And that's the status quo. If a case comes up where a lower judge thinks that an action is textbook un-Constitutional and could cause immediate harm, he should be able to stop that immediate harm. Quickly. He can be smacked down later. But I call it a useful judicial power.

I'm going to repeat what I said before - a federal court in another jurisdiction has zero control over me. None. No jurisdiction. No authority. Cannot hold me in contempt. Cannot find me guilty of anything. Etc. So, why can that court enjoin a federal law that impacts me? Make zero legal sense.

Now, if you want to create a system that expedites the process, that's easy. Just hold that all federal law much be challenged in one neutral location. It would make sense to make that the DC Circuit. But, instead of a single judge, make it a panel. Hell, make it the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That would actually make sense.

But, your blind faith in the judicial system is misplaced. District Court judges are not geniuses. They are not experts in any legal issue. They are not omnipotent. They are just individuals with the same flaws and biases as the rest of us. In fact, some of these judges have absolutely horrible records on appeal. But, they are appointed for life, so, they feel they are untouchable.

Ridiculous. Broken system.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Did you read the article in the OP?

Yep. Does not change anything I wrote in this thread.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yes, it directly contradicts some of your assertions. But I'm stopping here before you go all BarryP, like you tend to do. Call it a win for yourself.

Did YOU read the article? It supports what I am saying in this thread. But, if you want to bail because you cannot defend your position, go for it. BarryP like to bitch out like this as well.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Do you understand the concept of jurisdiction? If you did, then you would understand why your position is illogical. Further the judicial system was designed to not have a district judge have national authority. This is the only instance they have authority outside their district.