Federal Judges Whine That SCOTUS Is Overturning Their Rulings

[Sean Renaud]

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.

The problem with this that the "Right answer" is what the Constitution says but while I don't think ANYBODY actually takes the Constition literally that is what plenty of people pretend to do. There are tons of things the Constitution doesn't actually say anything distinct about and you have to interpret it as you see fit.

 

[SkyBubble]

The problem with this that the "Right answer" is what the Constitution says but while I don't think ANYBODY actually takes the Constition literally that is what plenty of people pretend to do. There are tons of things the Constitution doesn't actually say anything distinct about and you have to interpret it as you see fit.

That's where you're wrong.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's where you're wrong.

How do you figure? How do you square the court coming to different answers on the same issue?

 

[RobDownSouth]

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

Kegger Kavanaugh got away with sexual assault, which elevated him to your personal pantheon of godhood.

I wonder how many episodes of nonconsensual sex are in your past.

 

[PaxNurgle]

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.

NO.

That is NOT the problem.

The problem is, the SCOTUS is currently filled with partisan, activist justices that do NOT have any loyalty to the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or separation of powers.

Rather, they are partisans and activists chosen specifically to enact and enforce a president's agenda. This was not their intended purpose, either by the Founding Fathers, or as dictated by the Constitution. We no longer have an impartial judiciary, but basically, a rogue court whose rulings are pre-dictated by the executive branch, rather than acting as a check against executive overreach.

In other words, The problem is with the Supreme Court being staffed with extremists and presidential "Yes Men" who out of touch with the law and the Constitution, not with the lower courts who are actually trying to uphold the law. This is why the legal system of this country is in such dire straights right now. The Supreme Court is broken.

I know this is all too much for you to understand, given your educational background (or lack thereof) but don't worry; anyone who knows or has studied constitutional law will understand.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Then rule constitutionally instead of ideologically.

Geez dude... ANOTHER new alias? Already?

No, Hisarpy, (I refuse to acknoledge your latest screen name by the way) this is the problem.

Most of the current crop of justices were SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN for their extreme IDEOLOGICAL leanings. Which all too often lie well outside of constitutional limits and bounds. And they were SPECIFICALLY CHOSEN to rule according to these extreme ideological leanings.

Again, for someone of your educational background, I don't expect you to get it, but anyone who as actually studied law (as opposed to high school dropouts like yourself who only claim to have) will understand this.

 

[Bodington]

NO.

That is NOT the problem.

The problem is, the SCOTUS is currently filled with partisan, activist justices that do NOT have any loyalty to the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or separation of powers.

Rather, they are partisans and activists chosen specifically to enact and enforce a president's agenda. This was not their intended purpose, either by the Founding Fathers, or as dictated by the Constitution. We no longer have an impartial judiciary, but basically, a rogue court whose rulings are pre-dictated by the executive branch, rather than acting as a check against executive overreach.

In other words, The problem is with the Supreme Court being staffed with extremists and presidential "Yes Men" who out of touch with the law and the Constitution, not with the lower courts who are actually trying to uphold the law. This is why the legal system of this country is in such dire straights right now. The Supreme Court is broken.

I know this is all too much for you to understand, given your educational background (or lack thereof) but don't worry; anyone who knows or has studied constitutional law will understand.

So which Presidents appointed these lower court Judges whose decisions have been overturned? As former Pres Obama said, "Elections have consequences."

 

[PaxNurgle]

^Trump, Obama, Biden and George W. Bush, in equal measure.

And , for example, George Bush, Senior, and a moderately conservative Republican, apponted David Souter, a Supreme Court justice who was neither conservative nor liberal, but one who was neutral and impartial, devoid of the ideological excesses of anyone on the current court. In other words, he was a good justice.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Trump appointed judges haven't been overly kind to Trump. I wonder if someone actually has a scorecard out there just to see the numbers.

 

[Bodington]

Trump appointed judges haven't been overly kind to Trump. I wonder if someone actually has a scorecard out there just to see the numbers.

You are actually demonstrating that Republican Presidents are more interested in appointing the highest qualifying person to the bench as opposed to a knee jerk idealogue. You may recall that when Biden had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he baldly stated that he was going to pick a black woman. Considering that the percentage of black women who possess a law degree is around 6%, it is reasonable to expect that his appointment would not be outstanding.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are actually demonstrating that Republican Presidents are more interested in appointing the highest qualifying person to the bench as opposed to a knee jerk idealogue.

"Highest qualifying person"?
*snort*

 

[Rightguide]

"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.

All of this traces back to the Obama–Biden habit of stacking the courts with partisan loyalists who lack real judicial experience. At least five of the fifteen judges on the D.C. Circuit fit that description, foreign-born, politically driven, and installed to obstruct the Trump presidency rather than uphold the law. These judges, along with others rushed onto inferior federal district courts by Democrats, are exactly why Trump stands undefeated 18–0 in the Supreme Court.

 

[ll74]

All of this traces back to the Obama–Biden habit of stacking the courts with partisan loyalists who lack real judicial experience. At least five of the fifteen judges on the D.C. Circuit fit that description, foreign-born, politically driven, and installed to obstruct the Trump presidency rather than uphold the law. These judges, along with others rushed onto inferior federal district courts by Democrats, are exactly why Trump stands undefeated 18–0 in the Supreme Court.

Lol

 

[LeahWill]

All of this traces back to the Obama–Biden habit of stacking the courts with partisan loyalists who lack real judicial experience. At least five of the fifteen judges on the D.C. Circuit fit that description, foreign-born, politically driven, and installed to obstruct the Trump presidency rather than uphold the law. These judges, along with others rushed onto inferior federal district courts by Democrats, are exactly why Trump stands undefeated 18–0 in the Supreme Court.

Didn't the Court rule against DACA program termination attempt in 2020?

 

[Hel_Books]

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's always a possibility, but more likely the conservative majority was just doing Orange Julius Caesar's bidding, couldn't justify their rulings rationally, and decided not to try to explain.

"Shut up!" he explained.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All of this traces back to the Obama–Biden habit of stacking the courts with partisan loyalists who lack real judicial experience. At least five of the fifteen judges on the D.C. Circuit fit that description, foreign-born, politically driven, and installed to obstruct the Trump presidency rather than uphold the law. These judges, along with others rushed onto inferior federal district courts by Democrats, are exactly why Trump stands undefeated 18–0 in the Supreme Court.

Keep those 'us vs. them' grievances coming, boyo.

The Roberts Supreme Court distilled to its essence in two sentences:

https://imgur.com/qIg5GRr

 

[Rightguide]

Supreme Court allows federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in LA​

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/amy-howe-thumbnail.jpg?w=100&h=100
By Amy Howe
on Sep 8, 2025

The Supreme Court on Monday paused a ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles that imposed restrictions on the ability of federal agents to make immigration stops that the plaintiffs say are based on racial profiling. The order by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong barred agents in the Central District of California – an area with a population of approximately 20 million people – from making such stops without reasonable suspicion that the person being stopped is in the United States illegally. Reasonable suspicion, Frimpong added, cannot rest solely on any combination of four factors: “apparent race or ethnicity,” speaking in Spanish or accented English, being present at a location where undocumented immigrants “are known to gather” (such as pick-up spots for day laborers), and working at specific jobs, such as landscaping or construction.

In a concurrence, Kavanaugh explained that the Trump administration had met both of the “most critical” factors that the court considers in deciding whether to grant temporary relief. First, he explained, “given the significance of the issue to the Government’s immigration enforcement efforts,” the Supreme Court would be likely to grant review if the 9th Circuit were to uphold Frimpong’s injunction.

Second, Kavanaugh continued, the Trump administration has shown not only that the Supreme Court would be likely to grant review, but also that it would be likely to reverse the lower court’s ruling in the challengers’ favor. The challengers likely lack a legal right to sue, known as standing, Kavanaugh wrote, because although they may have been stopped in the past, they “have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors” in Frimpong’s injunction.

Moreover, Kavanaugh added, although “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” for an immigration stop, reasonable suspicion can rest on the “totality of the circumstances.” Here, he stressed, circumstances such as the “extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area,” the fact that undocumented immigrants often “gather in certain locations to seek daily work” and “often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction,” and “that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English” can, when “taken together,” “constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States.”

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/...freely-make-immigration-stops-in-los-angeles/

Note the name on the legally illiterate judge highlighted above. This is the kind of unprepared legal lightweight who presumes to wield authority greater than the Article II powers of the elected Executive. And yet, our President is forced to contend with this caliber of judicial obstruction at the District Court level just to carry out the very policies the American people chose him to enact.

 

[Rightguide]

Keep those 'us vs. them' grievances coming, boyo.

The Roberts Supreme Court distilled to its essence in two sentences:

https://imgur.com/qIg5GRr

Yes, according to you and your intellectual superiors like U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong , only white people can be stopped and questioned.