This message was self-deleted by its author

[WarGamer]

This message was self-deleted by its author (WarGamer) on Tue Jul 1, 2025, 06:57 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[WarGamer]

1. Some more details from that case

Outrage and confusion ensued. President Biden called Judge Kacsmaryk’s order “the next big step toward the national ban on abortion that Republican elected officials have vowed to make law.” Professor Nicholas Bagley asked: “[Judge Kacsmaryk is] just a single judge in a small courthouse in Amarillo, Texas. Does he really have the power to dictate national policy about drug safety? If so, should he have that power?” Dean Erwin Chemerinsky explained how “the case reveals underlying problems in the judicial system” and argued that “[l]itigants should not be able to handpick a judge who then can issue a nationwide injunction throwing the entire country into chaos.”

A robust scholarly literature has grappled with these questions. Some scholars, jurists, and attorneys criticize the practice of district courts issuing nationwide injunctions as an inappropriate abuse of power. Others defend nationwide injunctions as a powerful way to check federal agency overreach and ensure robust relief for plaintiffs.

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/

[Seeking Serenity]

2. "It's OK when forum-shopped judges we like issue universal injunctions against the Bad Man

"But it's wholly illegitimate for a forum-shopped judge in Amarillo to think he can issue one. Who does he think he is?

"Because our judges are lofty and noble while Kacsmaryk is just an imposter in a black robe, a judge beneath anyone's notice."

Or some similar, purely tribalistic, sophistry like that.

[OC375]

3. Holy Grail

This is the holy grail of the right. Essentially, it's "state's rights." No more "left coast judges" strinking down local laws from 1000 miles away, it would seem. I think that has to be part of the calculus. It's actually more impactful than a mere birthright citizenship ruling, IMHO.

[Igel]

4. Biden ran into this a few times.

Not as much.

[WarGamer]

5. Like the article said... right wing groups ran to Texas Judges frequently to derail Biden laws...

[Sympthsical]

6. I agree with putting the brakes on judge shopping, but

And it's a huge BUT, the Court did not provide a complete solution to the problem. They just left it for lower courts to scramble. As noted in the dissents and many, many other commentators, an executive may act outside of the bounds of Constitutional power for significant periods of time in an array of jurisdictions until plaintiffs can find the money and attorneys to seek relief.

And that's assuming the court in their jurisdiction is minded to even grant that relief.

I can't remember which Justice it was - I think Sotomayor - who called it a "zone of lawlessness." And she's right. It blows a temporal hole into constitutional checks.

It seems like, at this juncture, the Court is implying that people should "trust us" and they will respond with alacrity to any blatantly unconstitutional exercise of power. But why on earth would anyone? We're watching the birthright issue languish as we speak.

The court's like me at a disliked job where I tell people "I'll get right on it" while they can clearly see I'm going to just keep staring at my phone for the next 15 minutes.

They say you can just go class action, but then it begs the question: What's the point of this ruling? Couldn't someone just judge shop their class action case? They have created a stupid problem here. I agree about the judge shopping. It's not how the judicial branch should work at all. But they needed to concretely and overtly outline a mechanism for when a national injunction would be appropriate and exactly which courts would be empowered to grant it.

They just told lower courts they were going the wrong way about injunctions. Ok, fine. What's the right way then, and how does it limit judicial overreach?

[W_HAMILTON]

7. Oh, you! The exception doesn't make the rule.

I'm sure you are pleased that you found one example of this Republican-hijacked Supreme Court ruling how any non-patisan Court would have ruled anyway, but there are plenty more examples of them allowing MAGAt extremist decisions in one circuit impact the entire nation (the SAVE repayment plan, student loan cancelation, etc.).

[WarGamer]

8. Bottom line, yes or no...

Do you support nationwide injunctions ordered by ANY lower Court?

Are you in support of empowering Matthew Kacsmaryk and his ilk?

And that's not the point of the post... it's about judicial overreach and Judge shopping looking for nationwide injunctions.

Did you read the article from the Brennan Center or the Harvard Law Review?

I don't believe a single Judge in Texas should be able to order ANYTHING that affects the country from Coast to Coast.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. I support a Supreme Court that doesn't pick and choose the legal standards it sets...

...based on whether the administration implementing a policy is Republican or not.

I personally don't believe judge shopping should allow a partisan in one circuit to dictate what happens in all other circuits, but my personal opinion has absolutely nothing to do with this.

This Republican-hijacked Supreme Court's opinion is all that matters now and it has made yet another partisan political decision in favor of a rightwing administration that is a complete reversal of how they ruled in similar situations during Democratic administrations.

Now, you answer my question, fellow Democrat: do you or do you not believe that this Court has been blatantly partisan and that many of its rulings have been decided not by legal standards or precedents, but simply by whether it is a Democrat or Republican in the White House?

[W_HAMILTON]

11. I view bias as to whether or not an international court...

...using our laws and legal standards, without any ties to our political system, would rule in a similar fashion or not.

Judging this Supreme Court by that standard, it has shown itself to be only slightly less partisan than blatantly political bodies like the current Republican House or Senate.

[TnDem]

12. The trouble with that

and why I would disagree, is that international courts are not beholden, nor do they understand, the concept of the US Constitution.

[W_HAMILTON]

15. Hence why i said using our laws and standards.

The "international" part was meant more to replace the inherent political bias by those in our country rather than to replace how or what laws are interpreted here.

[TnDem]

13. The problem with that.

and why I would disagree, is that international courts are not beholden, nor do they understand, the concept of the US Constitution.