Anonymous #4 12w

Look up the injunctions they struck down today. Educate yourself before you talk shit.

23

Anonymous #5 12w

It’s bad bc then presidents can pass blatantly illegal eos and you just have to live with it if you don’t have the ability to be a plaintiff.

9

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No. That’s not how this works. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that they alone have the power to overrule the president. In compliance with the constitution.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes that is how it works do you understand that the Supreme Court doesn’t have original jurisdiction on everything that’s in the constitution. So Americans have to go through an entire appeals process just so they can have constitutionally protected rights.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

And that wasn’t taken away

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Do you think the court dismantled the entire federal Judiciary????? They ruled that federal judges cannot exert power outside their jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

What was taken away from my understanding is now lower district courts can hand out nation wide injunctions that means that if a president does a blatantly illegal eo like Trump did Americans just have to live with it unless they can be a plaintiff.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Yeah that’s what happened. Are you pre law?? When could an American sue without being a plaintiff? How is that even possible? The purpose of the decision was to stop judges trying to overturn actions taken at the executive level

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I’m being so specific here idk why you’re pretending to be ignorant. Do you realize the federal government impacts the districts?? That’s why they could do nation wide injunctions bc the federal government works within the districts.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I’m not saying they should be able to sue without being a plaintiff why are we jumping from straw man to staw man. They should be able to take actions at the federal level it’s a federal court.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

They can. Not outside of their jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

The federal government works within their jurisdiction unless you think federal law should change district to district or that districts just has to deal with illegal eos until an appeal happens.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I didn’t say it should change, but a judge doesn’t have jurisdiction over a different district. Now a judge can rule on an issue for their district, and not impact another district. As is the law. Every every district wants to appeal they can, but they can’t appeal for the entire country, which they don’t have jurisdiction over

1

Anonymous #4 12w

That’s not what the majority opinion was from my understanding. From my understanding judges can now only give an injunction for the plaintiff now not a nation wide injunction. So a judge can’t just rule for their district federal law isn’t changing district to district. If the government does like an injunction they should be forced to appeal it idk why we would put that burden on people in the district who are plaintiffs.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Aren’t plaintiffs*

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

An injunction which covers their district.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Or I misspoke bc obviously if you aren’t a party you can’t appeal.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

That’s not a change in law district to district, it’s an injunction filed in that district

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes I understand that my point is that scotus didn’t just make it so “now judges just rule on their districts” that’s not what’s going on they made it so they essentially can’t give nation wide injunctions. That means if a blatantly illegal eo comes up you cant block even in your district. Meaning people just have to deal with eos in their day to day lives until it’s appealed or the case is decided.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

They made so you can only give completely relief to the plaintiff so if you aren’t a plaintiff you just have deal with an eo messing with your life. That doesn’t seem to be a good system to me.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No. They can still rule on their district. They can’t rule on a national injunction. They shouldn’t have that power, scotus should, and it does.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yeah I understand that what you think my point is it’s bad system bc now if you aren’t a plaintiff you just have to deal with illegal eos messing with your life. To me it makes more sense for federal judges to rule on things that impact their districts and if the government doesn’t like it they can appeal. This system would safe court constitutional rights by putting the burden on the government to appeal.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

But the burden is still on the government to appeal. They can still issue an injunction. They can still sue. A federal judge can still issue an order. They just can’t block it nationally. If trump issued an egregiously illegal order that effected everyone in the us SCOTUS could overturn it immediately. They don’t need to have a hearing. Or they can issue an injunction pending a hearing. What kind of order could any president give that effects every single American on a daily basis anyway?

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I should be clear, I know the executive has extreme power, the emancipation proclamation is actually an executive order, I mean what are you worried about him doing that SCOTUS doesn’t immediately overturn?

1

Anonymous #4 12w

The burden is much less on the government if the government can just pass an eo and only have it not impact plaintiffs that increases the power of the government. Yes I never said they couldn’t give an order my point is the way you presented as “now they just work in their district” was a weird to summarize it. Could SCOTUS overturn it immediately, source? I’m sure they could give an eo that impacts every American. Idk when I said that they couldn’t but ok.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

My understanding is that scotus can’t just immediately overturn a thing. Then what would be the point of original jurisdiction if the supreme can rule on something immediately anyway?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

The Supreme Court's power to review laws and executive actions and declare them unconstitutional is a cornerstone of the U.S. system of checks and balances. This power was established in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803)

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

The Court has consistently held that the president's power is not absolute and is subject to legal and constitutional constraints. Landmark cases like Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) and United States v. Nixon (1974) have further defined the boundaries of presidential authority.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I can keep going, it’s their entire job dude. This just reaffirmed that it’s THEIR job and not the jurisdiction of district judges

1

Anonymous #4 12w

No but they can’t just do judicial review randomly they need appellate or original jurisdiction

1

Anonymous #4 12w

These aren’t sources on what I asked for lol

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Case citation is the origin of the precedent the court acts on. An EO is an executive action, it may violate the constitution at the highest level, the SCOTUS has the same power as a district court to issue an appeal or injunction, except scotus can do it at the national level

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Again but that doesn’t mean they have original jurisdiction that’s my entire point lol you said they would immediately be able to do that, that’s not true.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yeah you keep jumping to irrelevant things for this entire convo I never said that scotus could never rule on an eo.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

They have the power to review every action by congress and the president to ensure there is not a constitutional breach

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I don’t even know what you’re saying this decision did at this point. Like what is your problème with this decision. Exactly.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yeah you’re not understanding my point. My point is they can’t just randomly review something from congress or the president like you claimed that’s not true. They would need original jurisdiction to rule on something immediately which they don’t always have.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

So while appeals are happening people just have to deal with blatantly illegal eos that’s my entire point.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

That’s your original jurisdiction

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

The case I cited before was the answer you wanted: , 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.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes I understand this lmao my point is many things don’t fall into their original jurisdiction so what you said about them being able to block something immediate isn’t true.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

No it wasn’t the answer I wanted I’m saying they can’t just randomly review a thing it needs to either appeal to their level or they need original jurisdiction on it that’s my claim for the 10th time.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Let me be extremely clear. Their original jurisdiction is outlined in article III section II. I provided the exact description. The power to review executive orders and congress was decided in Marburg v. Madison. (1803). It is the legal precedent. There has not been a ruling that overturned those rulings. That is the law. That is the courts power, it’s based on the legal precedent of the cases they have heard and how they ruled on them.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Ok idk English is your second language. I agree with you the court had the power of judicial review my point is they can’t just randomly review a law or executive order they need original jurisdiction or needs to appeal up to their level then they can review it.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

The court has the power of judicial review*

1

Anonymous #4 12w

And not everything falls under their original jurisdiction like you’ve shown.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

They do not need original jurisdiction. They have the power of review by legal precedent. Their original jurisdiction cover disputes between states and ambassadors.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

It is a power of the court. Decided by the court. Based on the legal precedent of the courts rulings.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

They do need original jurisdiction or it needs to be appealed to their level.judicial review doesn’t mean they can randomly decide a thing whenever it just means they can rule on the constitutionality of a law or eo when they have Jurisdiction. Unless you have a source that actually addresses that, that’s my understanding.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I don’t know how to explain this better. It’s the legal precedent of the court to review executive orders. Becasue of the case I sent you. Like please google that and you’ll see the same result. You have a flawed understanding of how the Supreme Court works.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

You’re not understanding, I’m not disagreeing with you that they can review executive orders I agree they can review executive orders my point is they can’t always do that immediately unless they have original jurisdiction. Unless you have a source that contradicts that.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Okay, the review of executive orders is not outlined in the constitution. Congress does not have that power, so the court has assumed it. It. Is. Not. In. Their. Original. Jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Do you not understand what jurisdiction means bc you’re not even addressing my claim you just keep repeating that they have judicial review or executive orders which I agree.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes that’s my point that’s not in their original jurisdiction meaning they can’t just immediately rule on something. Omg you actually don’t know what jurisdiction means.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

OH MY FUCKING GOD WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING HERE??? do you understand how legal precedent works.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Original Jurisdiction doesn’t mean that’s the only thing a court can rule on you can appeal anything to the Supreme Court theoretically. My point is bc eos aren’t under their original jurisdiction you would have to appeal for them to rule on it.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No. They have appellate powers. BUT the court also has powers assumed by precedent. Including the power to review executive orders. Assumed via their constitutional authority and the powers granted within, the lack of oversight provided by the constitution on executive orders AND the legal precedent. They derive their power to review from the legal precedent which grants them ether power to review. It is axiomatic.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Ok I’m gonna say this for the tenth time “court also has powers assumed by precedent. Including the power to review executive orders” I AGREE WITH YOU. That’s not our disagreement my point is they can’t review something immediately unless it’s under their original jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Like idk how I can make it more clear that I agree that they can review executive orders that’s not our disagreement stop referencing it lol.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

If they have the power then they have the power. Why do they need jurisdiction if they don’t have the power? BETTER QUESTION. What is the procedure for answering questions the answer to which cannot be found in the constitution?

1

Anonymous #4 12w

That’s not a better question I understand legal precedent. You just don’t understand how jurisdiction works with the Supreme Court. I’m not saying they don’t have jurisdiction I’m saying they need ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO REVIEW an executive order immediately other wise it needs to be appealed to their level aka Appellate jurisdiction. Judicial review falls under that system of legal jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Okay so you tell me. What is the process that end with an executive order in front of the court for review

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Ok it’s either two different situations, either A. The EO falls under one of the original jurisdiction stipulations in the constitution or more likely B. The executive order falls under a lower court’s jurisdiction until it’s appealed to scotus.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Why would it fall under a lower courts jurisdiction

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

How do we ( we being the us) handle constitutional issues, where the constitution doesn’t provide an answer?

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Bc it impacts people in their district and it can’t go anywhere else bc the higher courts don’t have original jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

But what if that court doesn’t have jurisdiction over this issue

1

Anonymous #4 12w

It does have jurisdiction if it’s a federal court that’s the entire point of lower courts.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

What?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

The federal judiciary does not have a stipulation granting it all powers not provided to the Supreme Court…. It’s actually like the opposite of that.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I don’t say it had all powers not provided to the Supreme Court it’s so hard for you not to straw man isn’t it? My point is if the supreme court doesn’t have original jurisdiction it has to be appealed to that level that’s the point of lower courts.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

That was a statement, not a straw man. A straw man is when you create an argument that you easily dismantle yourself. The issue of executive order review is NOT in the constitution AT ALL. How does the United States handle issues that are not handled in the constitution?

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes good job looking up that definition and I never made the statement that “the federal judiciary does have a stipulation granting it all powers not provided to the Supreme Court” you just made that up. Yes but the constitution does talk about original jurisdiction judicial review didn’t expand original jurisdiction.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No stop. You’re making leaps. How do we handle issues that the constitution does not answer.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

You keep trying to make this argument about legal precedent that’s not our disagreement you just learned how jurisdiction worked lmao.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No I didn’t???? I’m not even talking about precedent . What is the PROTOCOL for handling issues that the constitution does not answer.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I’m not making leaps that was our disagreement again judicial review did not expand original jurisdiction. I’m not gonna go down your random tangent about legal precedent until you acknowledge that.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I’m not going down a random tangent until you acknowledge this.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I never said judicial review expanded original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction is what it is. Hence “original”. This is not a tangent. Please answer the question

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I didn’t say you said it I’m asking you to acknowledge it then we can go down you tangent.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Okay, I just acknowledged it.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Original jurisdiction cannot be expanded period

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Ok the protocol is that judges use different doctrines of constitutional and legal interpretation and then they create an opinion that becomes the legal precedent for interpreting that law in whatever given situation.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

No, I’m not talking about case law. An issue at the congressional or presidential level about the constitution that cannot be answered. When that kind of question arises, which body is tasked with answering that question.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

So to be clear when you said “SCOTUS could overturn it immediately” then you referenced judicial review that was just incorrect bc like you said you can’t expand original jurisdiction so they couldn’t rule on it immediately.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

My understanding is case law is how it’s answered.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

You’re not answering my question. The issue is put before SCOTUS. The issue of executive order review was out before scotus in 1809. They decided that they, the Supreme Court, had the authority to review the constitutionality of executive orders. They alone have that power. The Supreme Court is unchecked. No one changed that rule. It’s just the rule. The Supreme Court has that power, by mandate of the court. The. End.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

So the thing I said like 2 hours ago? Yes. Caselaw. The court has that power by mandate if the court. wtf answer were you looking for dude?? You could have googled this at any point and seen what I’m saying. Like there only one answer here, and idk why you think original jurisdiction has anything to do with the powers and duties of the court. The original jurisdiction covers literally 2 things.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

You realize that doesn’t make sense district courts 100% can rule on the conditionality of things. Why do you think these eos are even ima district court what?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

You’re confusing ruling on the constitutionality of an order with an issue that arises in the constitution. The issue of executive order review WAS a case that was appealed and finally heard by the supreme court, when the court determined it had the power to review executive orders. That doesn’t mean a district court can’t appeal them, it means the Supreme Court can unilaterally review them.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

You’re so confused, again I can’t tell if your brain is melting bc you really don’t want to lose an argument or what. You realize that the Supreme Court can’t rule on something immediately unless it’s in their original jurisdiction. That’s contradicting what you said, you said they could rule on it immediately. I’m not asking you for the right answer I know you’re clueless I’m trying to show you how you’re wrong.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

We aren’t talking about the powers and the duties of the court we’re talking about if scotus could rule on anything immediately like you claimed.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Okay. Do you know the answer to this question???? Because I’m giving you the fucking answer. You’re not taking it. Figure me, I’m only a poli-sci major. Please tell me. What is the answer to this question that your so certain I haven’t answered properly

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I never said that scotus can’t review it I’ve repeatedly and explicitly said that they could. I also never said district court: couldn’t appeal them idk what you think you’re catching me on??

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Lmao what question are you talking I’m not asking you a question again I know you’re clueless lol. What??

1

Anonymous #4 12w

My entire point is you said they could rule on it immediately and that’s not true that’s the entire point I’ve demonstrated.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

You haven’t demonstrated anything. You’ve demonstrated you don’t know what you’re talking about. Executive order review isn’t a legal hearing. It’s not an appellate issue. It is a power and duty of the Supreme Court. That power was given to the court by the court. Based on a case they heard in 1809. No one but the Supreme Court can review executive orders. It had absolutely nothing to do with original jurisdiction or the appeals process.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

It is a power and duty of the court. That’s why I mentioned powers and duties of the court and its relation to original jurisdiction. I do not understand what you’re not understanding here.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes and lower courts can also review the constitutionality of laws and eos. Like you said you can’t expand original jurisdiction so at this point your constricting yourself if your saying only scotus can review eos.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Contradicting*

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

NO THEY CANNOT THEY CAN APPEAL THEM AND THEY CAN SUE THE ORECIDENT. THEY CAN DISPUTE THE LEGALITY OF THEM THEY CANNOT UNILATERALLY REVIEW THEM AND RULE THEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I’m done going back and forth with you on this. Fucking google it and come back and tell me what I got wrong. I’ve been trying for 2 hours to explain this to you. I’m done.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Ok source if that’s true. My understanding is lower courts can rule executive orders unconstitutional.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

https://www.supremecourt.gov

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I have googled it and looks like your wrong lol so I’m trying to understand where your getting this idea from? even if you were right that wouldn’t mean that scotus could rule on something immediately because it would still have to be appealed.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Fucking show me where and how I am wrong.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

This from the American bar I assume when they say courts they mean lower courts.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Idk what this general Supreme Court url is supposed to show me

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I’m sorry, are you aware of the decision that was made TODAY????? Have you seriously been arguing with me about the powers of the court before the ground breaking decision the court just made????

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

As of today. The Supreme Court alone AS OF TODAY has the power to review the executive because of the jurisdiction and powers of the court alone.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

What the fuck was the purpose of your argument? To establish that before today the courts had the power to issue these orders??? The Supreme Court has always had the power of review independent of the apellete process. They have always had unilateral power. The federal judiciary never had final authority. That was put into law today.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Yes that’s how the convo started how is it relevant to our disagreement about lower courts?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

And my original argument was that they didn’t have authority or jurisdiction

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

Which was codified. Today.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 12w

I cannot believe you’ve been arguing the position that the court literally fucking rules against earlier today. That’s such a pointless fucking argument to make. And for you to actually start fucking insulting my understanding of the system when you’re arguing the position that literally lost a few hours ago. Amazing. I’m going to bed.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

Where did it say they can’t review executive orders? my understanding is it was just limiting nation wide injunctions. If I’m wrong on that I’ll own up that I haven’t read the entire opinion.

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I think you just made this up lol but I’ll read it tomorrow to see if you’re right ;).

1

Anonymous #4 12w

I just got done reading the majority opinion for Trump v. CASA scotus does not have “alone…has the power to review the executive” that’s not true you just lied lol. You’ve never read the opinion and deserve every insult I gave you bc you don’t understand the system and it’s so obvious. I gave you so much more charitably than your worth in this convo. The majority opinion limited universal injunctions (like I said it did) it didn’t say that now only scotus can rule on the executive.

1