Judiciary's Growing Power

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Clean, May 22, 2019.

  1. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    In a speech on Tuesday, AG William Barr noted that Federal Judges have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against the Trump Administration, or about 1 per month. In contrast they only issued 2 against Obama and only 27 in all of the 20th Century. If speaks to the rapidly growing power of the Judiciary.

    Barr stated that the judicial power grab extends way beyond their constitutional authority and went so far as to call it "perverse". He said that by issuing nationwide injunctions based on local cases, they are undermining the power of the executive branch. He said that the Judicial Branch has essentially thrust itself into the political process by encouraging plaintiffs with "strong political leanings" to file suit. He didn't say it, but he could have added that they usually file suit in districts known to have sympathetic judges.

    I couldn't agree more. The Democrats don't seem to ever realize that someday the situation will be reversed and their guy will be in office and his power will also be diminished.

    Nationwide Injunctions Speak to Judiciary’s Growing Power, Barr Says
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. I35

    I35 5,000+ Posts

    It’s actually scary how political the Judiciary Branch has become. Well for that matter all the heads of the major government law enforcement agencies as well. Pretty much all lead back to Obama with all the corruption.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    This " He said that since Trump took office, there have been 37 nationwide injunctions — more than one a month -- against his office and he said there is likely no end in sight. He said, by comparison, there were two instances where district courts issued an injunction in President Obama’s first two years. "
    should be concerning even to Dems.
     
  4. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    This goes way back, much further than the Obama administration. In the early New Deal era, the SCOTUS was activist. They were reined in by FDR and threats to pack the Court. Then, judicial activism and politically-minded judges came back with a vengeance with the Warren Court. There were serious conservative moves to impeach Justice Earl Warren--some of them mainstream, others lead by some dubious, unsavory, and conspiratorial characters. Supposedly Dallas was chock full of such characters in that era.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    Last edited: May 22, 2019
  5. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    Ideally, all courts, including the SCOTUS would consist of competent, impartial umpires who would call balls and strikes and apply the law without regard to politics or policy. We all know (or we all should know) that's often not how it works in the real world. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and has been for a long, long time.

    Both sides of the political divide know it, and that's why SCOTUS nominations are so bitterly contested. You think Senators were mean to J. Kavanagh? They were. You think McConnell pulled a fast one not even letting J. Garland get a hearing in the Senate for many months and running out the clock? He did. But look into the Bork hearings. "Borked" became a verb! Nothing new.

    And Joe Biden was in the thick of it:
    "All I have done was point out that the right of privacy, as defined or undefined by Justice Douglas, was a free-floating right that was not derived in a principled fashion from constitutional materials," Bork lectured Senator Biden in the hearings when questioned about Griswold/Roe and the judicially-created "right" to privacy. The politicized leftist legal scholars really hated to hear this coming from the Yale legal intellectual Bork. Also, old hippies were still pissed at Bork for doing Nixon's bidding in the "Saturday Night Massacre."

    Whatever your judicial philosophy, if you're being honest, you would regard Bork as a giant in the Constitutional legal field. Closest thing to Bork to sit on the SCOTUS = J. Rehnquist. IMHO, both Kavanagh and Garland are pretty average judges for this level, but both were certainly treated unfairly.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Anyone remember when the Executive Branch losing in court was held up as an example of Executive overreach?

    RiqxKXr_d.jpg
     
  7. Clean

    Clean 5,000+ Posts

    It always struck me as odd that a federal judge in Hawaii could thwart Trump's immigration executive orders for the entire nation, especially in light of the fact that he is appointed, not elected. It's analogous to a federal judge in Texas striking down pineapple laws in Hawaii.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. ProdigalHorn

    ProdigalHorn 10,000+ Posts

    Really? Getting shut out 9-0 by SCOTUS should be viewed in the same way as a district court making a ruling on national law which invariably have no connection whatsoever to whether something is actually constitutional?

    When/if a Trump action gets blanked by the SCOTUS, I'll be more than happy to point to it as an example of executive overreach.
     
  9. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts


    Fortunately no conservative on West Mall has ever championed lower court ruling "wins". Oh wait...maybe you would you like to aim for some field goal posts on THIS field?
     
    • poop poop x 1
  10. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Want to know why he's losing so many lower court cases? Here's a good article.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    From your article:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Then you are upset over the rule of law?

    Every time I have the inclination to defend conservatives from accusations that they prefer autocrats someone (a lover of excrement, no less) comes along and reinforces the stereotype.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Not at all. I'm simply saying you, and the article's author, are jumping the gun by concluding that losing lower court decisions = losing in the final analysis.

    I will also say that adherence to bureaucratic process, like everything, can be taken too far. And in many cases, yes, I applaud Trump for attempting to cut through all the red tape to actually get something done. Notice though, that he hasn't governed by fiat (executive orders) nearly as much as the sorry bastard who immediately preceded him.
     
  14. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Who is making that argument? Keep in mind, that argument is being used by your compatriots above to point at judicial overreach.

    You might want to update that argument. Trump has already signed more EO in his first 3 years than Obama (Trump 110 - Obama 108). Year 3 isn't even half over for the "winner".
     
  15. mchammer

    mchammer 10,000+ Posts

    Trump had a lot of Obama **** to clean up
     
  16. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Careful... @Sangre Naranjada will give you a poop emoji because you've just popped his bubble on the Executive order argument. Wait...who am I kidding? Y'all never hold yourselves accountable. Never admit defeat is the new mantra, right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • poop poop x 1
  17. Vol Horn 4 Life

    Vol Horn 4 Life Good Bye To All The Rest!

    How many of those were reversals of Obama orders?
     
  18. Chop

    Chop 10,000+ Posts

    All legislative power resides in the legislative branch--at least it's supposed to. The executive shouldn't legislate through executive orders any more than the judiciary should legislate from the bench. That goes for all executives and all supreme courts.

    Unwise is the administration that chips away at the Constitutional separation of powers for political gain (although many administrations certainly have done so...).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    It's not just adherence to bureaucratic process. It's the Administrative Procedure Act, which is an act of Congress. It's not "cutting through the red tape." It's sloppiness. By the way, the APA "red tape" exists for a reason. It does things like require agencies to keep their rules public, allow the public to have notice and be allowed to participate in the creation of federal regulations, and set forth objective and uniform rules of procedure for enacting regulations. One can be generally opposed to regulation and still consider the APA a good law and want it enforced on the executive.
     
  20. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada 10,000+ Posts

    Fair enough. I'm willing to acknowledge that Trump's approach is ham-handed and often sloppy. That's what you get when a non career politician (let's be even more honest - a rookie politician) sits in the White House. His regulation cutting instincts are spot on, and his politically savvy advisors really should be more direct about appropriate procedure so those instincts can bear fruit.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Garmel

    Garmel 5,000+ Posts

    Yep. I would still take Trump and his sloppiness over someone smooth like Romney any day of the week.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    I highly suspect that his advisers are telling him how to correctly follow the law. The President of the United States has attorneys on staff who know how to do this stuff and whose job it is to advise Trump correctly. Knowing how Trump tends to operate, I would assume that he blows them off and either follows his political and policy advisers (Stephen Miller, et al.) or just wings it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  23. militaryhorn

    militaryhorn Prediction Contest Manager

    just wings it...<----This
     
  24. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Here is a list. Based only on perusing the list I'd estimate very few were simple reversals.
     
  25. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    It constrains politicians and bureaucrats. At the very least, it ensures they have to expose their logic thus giving transparency to us the voters.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    He most certainly has advisers telling him what he can and can't do per the law. It's the political advisers he chooses to listen to as they attempt to scheme around the law.

    Trump has made a career out of not following any rules; legal, financial, moral or ethical. There is ample evidence of this on all fronts.
     

Share This Page