Federal Judges Whine That SCOTUS Is Overturning Their Rulings

[Bodington]

I came across a humorous article on Fox News as cited below. Apparently 12 federal district court judges upon the condition of anonymity voiced concern to NBC News that they were alarmed how frequently their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). 10 of those judges (all appointed by Dem Presidents) argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges. You think? I guess it did not dawn on these Judges that perhaps their rulings were so patently absurd that SCOTUS did not find the need to cross the ‘tees’ and dot the ‘eyes’ in overturning their rulings.

See:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fe...court-overturning-decisions-emergency-rulings

 

[Sean Renaud]

Their rulings were not absurd. I don't even need to dig into this data to know that much. This is just bad optics no matter how you spin it and like so much of what Trump has done to our nation its going to take decades to unfuck this.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Their rulings were not absurd. I don't even need to dig into this data to know that much. This is just bad optics no matter how you spin it and like so much of what Trump has done to our nation its going to take decades to unfuck this.

Yes they were. Judges are not administrators no matter how much they want to be. Further, fully half of the cases overturned were because the plaintiff brought the case in the wrong court.

Fuck the petty tyrants.

 

[Bodington]

Their rulings were not absurd. I don't even need to dig into this data to know that much. This is just bad optics no matter how you spin it and like so much of what Trump has done to our nation its going to take decades to unfuck this.

Do you know the difference between making laws as to interpreting laws? Judges are supposed to interpret laws not make laws. As an absurd recent example was the ruling that Trump had not the authority to impose tariffs. Curiously enough they allowed the tariffs to remain in place until October when SCOTUS will give the definitive ruling. Presidents in the past have always engaged in implementing tariffs to various degrees for the purpose of regulating trade. It is impractical for Congress to enact tariffs and certainly Judges are not allowed to enact tariffs. So in essence, what this ruling comes down to is that the Judges believe that Trump's implementation of tariffs was not a wise policy decision; which is way beyond the purview of the power that Judges have. I'm certain that this ruling will be slapped down by SCOTUS as it sure qualifies as a totally absurd ruling.

 

[HisArpy]

You know, for judges to not recognize that if The SCOTUS is regularly overturning their decisions, perhaps the problem lies in their decision making and not the higher court's decisions. That they fail to see that is kinda telling about the poor state of these lower court judges' decision making abilities.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do you know the difference between making laws as to interpreting laws? Judges are supposed to interpret laws not make laws. As an absurd recent example was the ruling that Trump had not the authority to impose tariffs. Curiously enough they allowed the tariffs to remain in place until October when SCOTUS will give the definitive ruling.

In the real world there is no difference between making and interpreting laws. I'm not sure if that's a feature or a flaw given how fucking hard it is to change the Constitution but there it is. Trump does not seem to have the authority to impose tariffs but its not curious they allowed them to remain in place until a higher court can make a final decision. One that will likely favor the president I might add. This is the kind of crap where Iwould absolutely pass the buck so to speak just so my signature is on it having said 'This is wrong, I object. Anything beyond this is on the next guy."

Presidents in the past have always engaged in implementing tariffs to various degrees for the purpose of regulating trade. It is impractical for Congress to enact tariffs and certainly Judges are not allowed to enact tariffs. So in essence, what this ruling comes down to is that the Judges believe that Trump's implementation of tariffs was not a wise policy decision; which is way beyond the purview of the power that Judges have. I'm certain that this ruling will be slapped down by SCOTUS as it sure qualifies as a totally absurd ruling.

Our government is supposed to be impractical as much as I loathe that and think it should be more streamlined. This is not a case where it would be at all impractical to let them do their jobs however. ITs not about them questioning his wisdom but the legality of it.

 

[Rightguide]

The D.C. federal circuit has fifteen judges, five of whom are foreign-born with zero judicial experience, handpicked by Obama and Biden precisely to do what they’re doing now: subvert the Constitution, obstruct the will of the American people, and undermine the Article II authority of the President. This wasn’t accidental; it was the deliberate stacking of the bench to wage politics from the courtroom. Every one of them should be impeached.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not going to look that one up. I'll just say after the last few decades I'm not interested in hearing anything about the Left packing the courts when the Right has made an art form out of it.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not going to look that one up. I'll just say after the last few decades I'm not interested in hearing anything about the Left packing the courts when the Right has made an art form out of it.

The difference is simple: we put Constitutional patriots on the bench, while you backed radical subversives bent on tearing it down. You trade the rule of law for raw emotion, as if feelings were a substitute for the Constitution.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You know, for judges to not recognize that if The SCOTUS is regularly overturning their decisions, perhaps the problem lies in their decision making and not the higher court's decisions. That they fail to see that is kinda telling about the poor state of these lower court judges' decision making abilities.

Personally,I'm of the opinion that if a judge(s) ruling is overturned by SCOTUS, that/those judges should be removed from the bench immediately and replaced. They tend to repeat their poorly thought out decisions and th entire process gets repeated again and again, needlessly. ANd they've obviously proved themselves incapable of adjudicating as per the law. One strike and you're gone......

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not going to look that one up. I'll just say after the last few decades I'm not interested in hearing anything about the Left packing the courts when the Right has made an art form out of it.

Don't be lazy, get educated:

 

[Rebel5soul]

The D.C. federal circuit has fifteen judges, five of whom are foreign-born with zero judicial experience, handpicked by Obama and Biden precisely to do what they’re doing now: subvert the Constitution, obstruct the will of the American people, and undermine the Article II authority of the President. This wasn’t accidental; it was the deliberate stacking of the bench to wage politics from the courtroom. Every one of them should be impeached.

Let's go with a faster alternative, the SCOTUS judges can hold them in contempt which effectively removes them from the bench. In a recent opinion the inferior courts were put on notice regarding their extra-judicial decisions. The courts do have the tools to police themselves.

 

[Rightguide]

Let's go with a faster alternative, the SCOTUS judges can hold them in contempt which effectively removes them from the bench. In a recent opinion the inferior courts were put on notice regarding their extra-judicial decisions. The courts do have the tools to police themselves.

More needs to be done. The Supreme Court should issue a clear rule allowing the President to ignore federal court orders when the court clearly lacks jurisdiction or when an inferior district court attempts to subvert or curtail the President’s plenary Article II authority, authority consistently supported by historical precedent and Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Court should take these lower courts to school using its own Political Question Doctrine, a principle of judicial self-restraint: if a case involves matters constitutionally committed to the legislative or executive branches, or lacks clear judicial standards, the Court traditionally declines to intervene, leaving the political branches to resolve the dispute. It is time for SCOTUS to reassert this doctrine and protect the separation of powers against overreach by inferior federal courts.

 

[HisArpy]

Personally,I'm of the opinion that if a judge(s) ruling is overturned by SCOTUS, that/those judges should be removed from the bench immediately and replaced. They tend to repeat their poorly thought out decisions and th entire process gets repeated again and again, needlessly. ANd they've obviously proved themselves incapable of adjudicating as per the law. One strike and you're gone......

I think 3 strikes is a better policy. It keeps everyone, including felons, on the same equal playing field and everyone already knows the rules.

But, other than that, yeah if you're a judge and your decisions are consistently overturned, then you need to vacate the bench. If not voluntarily, then you should be removed.

Removal should come with a suspension of your law license until you've taken remedial classes and passed a practical knowledge test on the law.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Personally,I'm of the opinion that if a judge(s) ruling is overturned by SCOTUS, that/those judges should be removed from the bench immediately and replaced. They tend to repeat their poorly thought out decisions and th entire process gets repeated again and again, needlessly. ANd they've obviously proved themselves incapable of adjudicating as per the law. One strike and you're gone......

The fact that the SCOTUS overturned your ruling doesn't mean your ruing was poorly thought out. Especially not if it was a 5/4 decision. That's making the generous assumption that the SCOTUS is remotely neutral which nobody believes of the current group anyway. I have no doubt that they would side with Trump if the Trans Gun Ban made it that far and a simple glimpse at "Shall not be infringed" would tell you doesn't work.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The fact that the SCOTUS overturned your ruling doesn't mean your ruing was poorly thought out. Especially not if it was a 5/4 decision. That's making the generous assumption that the SCOTUS is remotely neutral which nobody believes of the current group anyway. I have no doubt that they would side with Trump if the Trans Gun Ban made it that far and a simple glimpse at "Shall not be infringed" would tell you doesn't work.

Oh, the Demovcrat appointments are NEVER neutral. The GOP ones - someof them are. Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for sure. Thomas and Alito okay. Roberts, no. Jackson and Sotomayor shouldn't even be on the court. They're retards. Kagan? Biased as fuck.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The fact that the SCOTUS overturned your ruling doesn't mean your ruing was poorly thought out. Especially not if it was a 5/4 decision. That's making the generous assumption that the SCOTUS is remotely neutral which nobody believes of the current group anyway. I have no doubt that they would side with Trump if the Trans Gun Ban made it that far and a simple glimpse at "Shall not be infringed" would tell you doesn't work.

One of the big problems is that a lot of the Demovcrat appointed judges try to make law instead of adjuicate on it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh, the Demovcrat appointments are NEVER neutral. The GOP ones - someof them are. Barrett and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for sure. Thomas and Alito okay. Roberts, no. Jackson and Sotomayor shouldn't even be on the court. They're retards. Kagan? Biased as fuck.

Barret is actually better than could have been expected, Kavenaugh is bout and paid for. Thomas is flat out evil. Alito is a bit hit or miss. I might not agree with his outcome but I usually think he came there from an honest place. I don't have much of an opinion of Jackson but Sotomayor is easily qualified.

One of the big problems is that a lot of the Demovcrat appointed judges try to make law instead of adjuicate on it.

End of the day their job in the real world is making law not adjicating it.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Barret is actually better than could have been expected, Kavenaugh is bout and paid for. Thomas is flat out evil. Alito is a bit hit or miss. I might not agree with his outcome but I usually think he came there from an honest place. I don't have much of an opinion of Jackson but Sotomayor is easily qualified.



End of the day their job in the real world is making law not adjicating it.

Yeah buddy, those evil constructionists. Upholding that evil document, the US Constitution. Bastids!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah buddy, those evil constructionists. Upholding that evil document, the US Constitution. Bastids!!!!!!!!!

A piece of paper is neither good nor evil. However if you're going to follow the letter of the law do it. They don't and nobody does because its fucking stupid.

 

[Rebel5soul]

A piece of paper is neither good nor evil. However if you're going to follow the letter of the law do it. They don't and nobody does because its fucking stupid.

Well the constructionists ARE following the Constitution.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well the constructionists ARE following the Constitution.

They pretend they are at any rate which is the problem.

 

[SkyBubble]

Then rule constitutionally instead of ideologically.

 

[RobDownSouth]

"Justice" Neil Gorsuch wrote a scathing rebuke of federal court judges sending the Supreme Court the same sort of cases over and over.

Federal Judge (and future Supreme Court Justice) Allison Burroughs fired back with a rare public bitchslap of the Supreme Court in a stinging footnote to her opinion that the Federal Government's attempt to control faculty picks at Harvard as unconstitutional.

In her footnote, Judge Burroughs said
“The court respectfully submits that it is unhelpful and unnecessary to criticize district courts for ‘defying’ the Supreme Court when they are working to find the right answer in a rapidly evolving doctrinal landscape, where they must grapple with both existing precedent and interim guidance from the Supreme Court that appears to set that precedent aside without much explanation or consensus."

Fucking-A right!

The court is now claiming that the infamous "shadow docket" (where individual Justices make law rather than interpret them) is now "precedent" setting. Just a few years ago, precedent hating "Justice" Samuel Alito swore that shadow docket rulings should NOT be seen as setting precedent. Now he talks out of the other side of his mouth.

"Justice" Brett "rapey" Kavanaugh is considered the worst abuser of the shadow docket on the bench.

 

[SkyBubble]

First of all, lower courts are bound by Supreme Court precedent until it's overturned. The Supreme Court is the top of the Judicial Branch.

Second, it is not the courts' function to "find the right answer." It's to follow the Constitution and the law as it exists, not as your ideology would like it to be.

And BTW, Kavanaugh, like Thomas, was the victim of an ideologically-motivated and organized smear campaign.