The justices must at long last deal with
‘chronic injunctivitis’
The Hill,
by
Jonathan Turley
Original Article
Posted By: Moritz55,
5/27/2025 9:40:32 AM
This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration.
The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I call “chronic injunctivitis” is now raging across the court system. Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy. For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
JimBob 5/27/2025 10:02:23 AM (No. 1956051)
'Three Co-Equal Branches of Government'?
'Checks and Balances'?
These leftist Judges are SO QUICK -a matter of Days, if not Hours- to overrule the President!
It looks like Judicial Tyranny to me. With them in power, why bother with having a President, or a Congress?
Tell me, what is the 'check' on the Judiciary, what is the limit on the power of an out-of-control Federal judge, other than the extremely slow and unwieldy process of impeaching and removing them?
Are we to expect that the Supreme Court, the head of the Judicial branch, will actually act to limit the power of the Judicial branch, especially as several of the members are suffering from raging Trump Derangement Syndrome?
They may do the right thing, but I am not optimistic.
46 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 5/27/2025 10:39:22 AM (No. 1956084)
Court judges must not be allowed to vote, declare a party affiliation, caucus with a party, donate to political campaigns, make public speeches, and campaign on behalf of political candidates. Lawfare plaintiffs must not be allowed to hand-pick judges for prosecuting their cases.
Perhaps a lottery system for judge selection would level the playing field. Similar to how prospective jurors are selected.
19 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
seamusm 5/27/2025 10:43:32 AM (No. 1956088)
This Supreme Court and in particular Chief Justice Roberts are just fine with pretending that the courts are the final abiter of all that is Truth in the USA. But at some point, this or another GOP President is going to ignore the court and repeat a famous line, 'Let (the court) enforce it'. At that point while some might view the response as appropriate, the very nature of our government might well be at risk. Justice Roberts, be careful what you wish for.
25 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/27/2025 10:51:04 AM (No. 1956090)
Many on the left again celebrated a judge effectively micromanaging the executive branch. Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, even seemed to add a threat — that “If Trump doesn’t comply, we’re in second amendment territory.”
Wouldn't you think tjat recently chastened fake "climate professor" Mann would sit down and shut up? I wonder if Mark Steyn has seen this?
17 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
slipstik 5/27/2025 11:34:18 AM (No. 1956107)
There are three independent government organizations operating without checks or balances.
The senate since the 17th amendment, the judiciary since forever, and the federal reserve since 1913.
The Constitution has been "interpreted" out of existence by the judiciary.
The Fed does whatever it wants, whenever it wants, usually to the detriment of the US.
The senate since the 17th has utterly shattered the checks and balances instituted by our founders.
I have no hope that the SCOTUS will make a worthwhile decision in this situation. They are just as political and corrupted as the senate.
This is the kind of environment where insurrection breeds.
18 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
franco 5/27/2025 11:57:04 AM (No. 1956122)
Turley has to know he's whistling past the graveyard. Roberts is compromised, Barrett might be compromised, and then there are the three liberal loons, including Kagan... who puts on veneer of jurisprudence when it suits her politics *only*. [I would love to see the solicitor general read back some of Kagan's prior comments to her... and then remind her of who said them.] This judicial tyranny will end only when the oval office occupant summons up the resolve of Andrew Jackson and not until. And I don't buy the *three* equal branches argument because The Constitution does not read that way... it states that the executive and legislative are equal, and the judiciary (Supreme Court, specifically) arbitrates disputes between the two branches.
13 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 5/27/2025 12:07:34 PM (No. 1956131)
They probably like it that way but the US Constitution is pressing them into a corner.
That dang Constitution...
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Red Ghost 5/27/2025 1:14:03 PM (No. 1956171)
Second Amendment territory? What the hell is that? YO, Secret Service, that sounds like a serious threat against President Donald J. Trump who has already had two assassination attempts. Time to visit that guy Mann.
As to Roberts, I keep saying, Pammy, we want to see that Epstein list. Get it out there.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Elljay 5/27/2025 2:05:24 PM (No. 1956179)
Congress could stop judicial tyranny if it wanted to. But even with a MAGA majority it doesn’t. The corruption goes wide and deep.
6 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
pensom2 5/27/2025 2:08:40 PM (No. 1956181)
He's probably too old to be a candidate for a Supreme Court justice nomination, but Jonathan Turley seems consistently to make sense in his news media opinions. Yes, I know he's a "declared" democrat, but I think that's just his clever cover to reduce the frequency of dems labelling him a right-wing MAGA Republican when he testifies before Congress or goes on media talk shows. Only Turley knows how he votes when he's alone in the voting booth.
Going back decades, I have often thought Thomas Sowell would have made an outstanding Supreme Court Justice, even though he's an economist and not law trained. There is no explicit requirement in the Constitution that SCOTUS members be lawyers. Sowell might have been deficient in his awareness of the rules of criminal and civil procedure, but he is so intelligent and so full of common sense that he would have provided a tremendous, much-needed leavening effect on the Court. He's far too old now, but that was my wish.
10 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Omen55 5/27/2025 3:53:59 PM (No. 1956235)
The solution to chronic injunctivitis is simple: You give district judges a dose of clarity and tell them not to call you in the morning.
Or Trump will invoke Andrew Jackson & these judges can pound sand.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
bpl40 5/27/2025 4:15:49 PM (No. 1956250)
There is a simple solution that preserves independence of three branches without making the judiciary toothless (which would be VERY dangerous if there is another Democrat administration). Restrict lower courts to their jurisdiction and the plaintiffs seeking relief. Universal or general relief against the President reserved for the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS may (a) decline to take the appeal beyond the direct jurisdiction (b) grant a universal injunction (c) Intervene sue moto. All temporary injunctions by local courts should automatically lapse within 2 weeks unless the SCOTUS directs otherwise. Justice Thomas has already suggested something on these lines. I think Alito and Gorsuch are inclined.
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 5/27/2025 7:08:59 PM (No. 1956307)
"Kagan did not explain where the line should be drawn"
THIS should SCREAM that her thinking is wrong. The Constitution and previous law, as passed by Congress and signed by the President should clearly paint where the "lines" are. Liberal judges get into trouble because the want to personally decide what is in and what is out. Then they start to contradict themselves when things they want don't fit in the lines they drew the last time. So they want to move the line. That is not law, that is judicial WHIM and it should be repudiated.
Law is something that you can KNOW BEFORE you take an action. If it's legal, you can proceed. If it's not, you don't. The only time there should be a conflict is if there are nuances that the law may or may not cover. That's when courts get involved, for clarification, not to set you on a completely different path. Again, that's up to Congress and the President.
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
JimJr 5/27/2025 7:30:29 PM (No. 1956313)
Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiffs are REQUIRED to post a bond equilivalent to the amount of money in question. The judges are ignoring this.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
MickTurn 5/27/2025 10:15:39 PM (No. 1956350)
IF the Majority of SCOTUS don't stop this massive illegal overreach, then Trump should IGNORE all Rulings from District Judges that they try to apply outside their District. Oh, yea, They can all POUND BROKEN GLASS!
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
mifla 5/28/2025 5:16:40 AM (No. 1956389)
The Constitution only specifies judges in the Supreme Court.
All other judge were put in place by Congress.
Congress could act to resolve this nonsense.
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
5 handicap 5/28/2025 5:52:42 AM (No. 1956398)
It would be nice to see Trump grow a pair like Andrew Jackson... Remind the judges that they do not have the authority to issue those injunctions and to stick those judgements where the sun don't shine!
He most assuredly cannot rely on the wholly owned Roberts and Barrett to ever side with the Constitution nor America!
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Periwinkel 5/28/2025 8:30:06 AM (No. 1956446)
John Roberts' favorite refrain: "Ees not my yob. Let the lower courts do it!"
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Moritz55"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)