We Need a New Judiciary Act

[Rightguide]

There's always been a 'short list' of "acceptable Negroes" you'd theoretically support.
Sho 'nuff!

I'm curious, has there ever been a black candidate for public office you've ever voted for?

Looking back, I don't think I ever had the opportunity to vote for a black conservative political candidate in the states or districts in which I've resided. Had I been in California in November of 2021 there's no question I would have voted for Larry Elder.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Looking back, I don't think I ever had the opportunity to vote for a black conservative political candidate in the states or districts in which I've resided. Had I been in California in November of 2021 there's no question I would have voted for Larry Elder.

Of course you would. He's a talking head with zero political experience, is a whore for the epoch times and Falun Gong, and had several sexual abuse cases including a fiancee.

 

[Bn2f]

Looking back, I don't think I ever had the opportunity to vote for a black conservative political candidate in the states or districts in which I've resided. Had I been in California in November of 2021 there's no question I would have voted for Larry Elder.

What I love about this is that the Big Tent GOP and its supporters can easily explain that they would vote for a person who is black and conservative if one ever happened to be on the ballot but don’t let the thought enter their pea brains why there are so few black members of society in their party.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

We need a Judiciary Act along the following lines:

A new Judiciary Act along these lines would need to define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for
judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making. Some possible provisions could include:

Prohibition on Political Interference: Explicitly barring federal judges from issuing rulings that intrude on the exclusive constitutional powers of the President or Congress.

Judicial Disciplinary Panel: A specialized body (perhaps within the Judicial Conference or an independent commission) to investigate and punish judges who violate their oath or commit transgressions that do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors or impeachment.

Ban on Political Involvement: Preventing judges from financially supporting, endorsing, or publicly commenting on political matters, with clear penalties for violations.

Expedited Review Process: Fast-tracking appeals for cases where lower court judges have obstructed constitutional executive authority, ensuring swift resolution by higher courts.

Accountability Mechanism for Constitutional Ignorance: Requiring federal judges to demonstrate a working knowledge of the text and original meaning of the Constitution, with removal as a possible consequence for repeated violations.

This could be a major step in restoring judicial neutrality and preventing politically motivated rulings from shaping national policy. Would you like help drafting a formal proposal or refining specific legal mechanisms?

I think I'll send these ideas along to my Senator and Congressmen.

Then all the maga judges would lose their jobs...

 

[KingDJT]

I will just leave this here. Tsk tsk Mr Roberts! Skull and cross bone society will send you off into the next world! EXPOSE THE COMMIES FOR WHO THEY ARE!

 

[Rightguide]

Hawley to Introduce Legislation to Rein in Judges Blocking Trump’s Agenda​

The senator decried the dozens of nationwide orders issued by district court judges as a ‘dramatic abuse of judicial authority.’

https://www.theepochtimes.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F06%2F23%2FSamantha-Flom.jpg&w=256&q=75
By Samantha Flom
3/20/2025Updated:3/20/2025
Print
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on March 20 that he will put forward legislation to curtail district court judges’ ability to block President Donald Trump’s policies nationwide.

“District Court judges have issued record numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration—a dramatic abuse of judicial authority,” Hawley wrote on the X platform. “I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good.” The senator did not provide further details about the legislation he intends to introduce.

The Trump administration is currently facing a barrage of more than 100 lawsuits challenging the president’s executive orders. In dozens of those cases, district courts have blocked the implementation of various policies nationwide, including National Institutes of Health grant funding cuts, a wider federal funding freeze, a ban on people who identify as transgender joining the military, and new restrictions on birthright citizenship, among others.

Typically, judges will tailor orders temporarily blocking the enforcement of a challenged law or policy to apply solely to the parties in the lawsuit. However, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris noted in a March 13 filing with the Supreme Court that nationwide orders had reached “epidemic proportions” since the start of the new Trump administration.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/ha...m_source=partner&utm_campaign=TheLibertyDaily

 

[Rightguide]

In regard to the firing cases of federal employees her are my reasons why they will eventually fail. The three elements required to file for a lawful injunction are as follows: jurisdiction, a showing of irreparable harm, and a likelihood of success on the merits.

First, Congress has stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over these employment matters, transferring authority to the Merit Systems Protection Board instead.

Second, irreparable harm must involve damage that cannot be remedied by monetary compensation. Since these cases hinge on financial restitution, they fail to meet this standard, meaning no lawful injunction can be issued.

Finally, any unlawful injunction would require delegating presidential authority, a power granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution. No federal judge has the authority to compel the President to exercise his constitutional powers against his will.

We can expect that all of these cases before any District Court will fail.

 

[HisArpy]

In regard to the firing cases of federal employees her are my reasons why they will eventually fail. The three elements required to file for a lawful injunction are as follows: jurisdiction, a showing of irreparable harm, and a likelihood of success on the merits.

First, Congress has stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over these employment matters, transferring authority to the Merit Systems Protection Board instead.

Second, irreparable harm must involve damage that cannot be remedied by monetary compensation. Since these cases hinge on financial restitution, they fail to meet this standard, meaning no lawful injunction can be issued.

Finally, any unlawful injunction would require delegating presidential authority, a power granted exclusively to the President by the Constitution. No federal judge has the authority to compel the President to exercise his constitutional powers against his will.

We can expect that all of these cases before any District Court will fail.

I think there needs to be an additional step where suits against the government require a motion hearing to determine if the suit has merit and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. If yes, the suit can go forward and the complaining party can file their suit. No suit can be filed prior to the hearing and the pre-hearing cannot combine the merits of the suit and the meritoriousness at the same time.

This stops Saturday midnight emergency TRO's.

 

[Rightguide]

I think there needs to be an additional step where suits against the government require a motion hearing to determine if the suit has merit and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. If yes, the suit can go forward and the complaining party can file their suit. No suit can be filed prior to the hearing and the pre-hearing cannot combine the merits of the suit and the meritoriousness at the same time.

This stops Saturday midnight emergency TRO's.

One thing is for sure we can't trust some judges to make an honest determination, because they are politically motivated and lack allegiance to the black letter of the law and their oath. So yes, I agree.

 

[Politruk]

We need a Judiciary Act along the following lines:

A new Judiciary Act along these lines would need to define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for
judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making.

That would be unconstitutional.

 

[ll74]

One thing is for sure we can't trust some judges to make an honest determination, because they are politically motivated and lack allegiance to the black letter of the law and their oath. So yes, I agree.

You can lobby for an amendment to change how the judiciary acts

 

[KingDJT]

We goin back to Common Law! It is as simple as that! Also a promise from a COMMON SENSE PRESIDENT!

 

[Politruk]

We goin back to Common Law! It is as simple as that! Also a promise from a COMMON SENSE PRESIDENT!

We always had common law, except in Louisiana. But the common law is not what the sovcits imagine it to be.

 

[Politruk]

If we lose judicial activism, we lose the Republic.

 

[Rightguide]

That would be unconstitutional.

You are ignorant, The inferior federal district courts are not in the Constitution. Every one of those district federal courts was created by Congress. Congress has total control over all of the inferior court's existence, jurisdiction, and funding, any of which can be altered or eliminated completely.

 

[Politruk]

You are ignorant, The inferior federal district courts are not in the Constitution. Every one of those district federal courts was created by Congress. Congress has total control over all of the inferior court's existence, jurisdiction, and funding, any of which can be altered or eliminated completely.

A statute to "define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making" would be unconstitutional. It would vitiate the whole concept of judicial review -- which is as old as the Republic.

 

[Rightguide]

A statute to "define judicial overreach, establish enforcement mechanisms, and create clear penalties for judges who violate their oath by engaging in political decision-making" would be unconstitutional. It would vitiate the whole concept of judicial review -- which is as old as the Republic.

That is not true. See the SCOTUS rulings on the "Political Question Doctrine" which I have posted about in the past.

 

[Politruk]

That is not true. See the SCOTUS rulings on the "Political Question Doctrine" which I have posted about in the past.

No, post those in this thread.

 

[Politruk]

Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges

 

[Politruk]

I think there needs to be an additional step where suits against the government require a motion hearing to determine if the suit has merit and whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Why an additional step? Those are issues on which government counsel could file a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment the moment the case is filed.

 

[Politruk]

The senator did not provide further details about the legislation he intends to introduce.

That's a pretty important omission.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Of course you would. He's a talking head with zero political experience, is a whore for the epoch times and Falun Gong, and had several sexual abuse cases including a fiancee.

Larry Elder was one of the stupidest token columnists of all time. Way back in the Time of Dubya, when syndicates were being pressured to lower the syndication fees for national columnists due to the Bush recession, Elder took a contrary stand; 'Nuh UH! Instead of lessening my fee, I'm instructing my news syndicate to INCREASE my syndication fee.' He subsequently disappeared from the national conversation overnight, only back due to the largesse of the Chinese media needing a House Negro to push their views.

 

[Politruk]

Looking back, I don't think I ever had the opportunity to vote for a black conservative political candidate in the states or districts in which I've resided.

That is because so many African-Americans are still poor. Honestly, what is there in the conservative agenda, to appeal to the poor?