Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 77

Should Judges be Banned From Issuing National Injunctions?

Argument in favor

Courts’ use of national injunctions bypasses normal legislative channels to pursue individual judges’ political agendas. This makes it harder for the government to function, and allows individual judges to usurp other judges’ ruling.

Hollee's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
No member of the judicial branch should be legislating. PERIOD.
Like (78)
Follow
Share
JTJ's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
We need to stop non elected activist judges.
Like (58)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
It's a start. Judges are always looking for a non-constitutional decisions based on Media Matters bullets points.
Like (48)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

National injunctions are a necessary court-based check against executive overreach, especially in the current political climate. As written, this may cause duplicative suits to clog up the judicial system.

AbolishWaste's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
No because the Judicial system is supposed to be a check on tyrants like Trump who declare a fake “national emergency” without the peoples’ permission. A national injunction is not legislation. Impeach Trump make America THINK again. Impeach Trump, make America great again.
Like (136)
Follow
Share
Mark 's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
"Judicial Activism" is an odd way of saying "following the law" and "checks and balances".
Like (69)
Follow
Share
Ruy's Opinion
···
02/16/2019
Checks and balances keep our government together. Shameful that this had to come from the state I live in.
Like (66)
Follow
Share
    No member of the judicial branch should be legislating. PERIOD.
    Like (78)
    Follow
    Share
    No because the Judicial system is supposed to be a check on tyrants like Trump who declare a fake “national emergency” without the peoples’ permission. A national injunction is not legislation. Impeach Trump make America THINK again. Impeach Trump, make America great again.
    Like (136)
    Follow
    Share
    "Judicial Activism" is an odd way of saying "following the law" and "checks and balances".
    Like (69)
    Follow
    Share
    Checks and balances keep our government together. Shameful that this had to come from the state I live in.
    Like (66)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to stop non elected activist judges.
    Like (58)
    Follow
    Share
    It's a start. Judges are always looking for a non-constitutional decisions based on Media Matters bullets points.
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    No. A federal judge judges at the federal level which included all the 50 states so any ruling must apply to the whole country, otherwise you’ll have a banana republic for country.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    For a party that claims to be about the ‘rule of law’ they seem to have a lot of difficulty with accepting the laws that exist , including the constitution.
    Like (34)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal judges are for FEDERAL LAW. Are we still the UNITED States? Federal laws apply EVERYWHERE. Are we really starting down the path to breaking up into 11 countries based on the court map? Hell No.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    If a measure is illegal by national standards it should be stopped nationally.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    This is one of the very reason the judicial branch exist.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    House bill H.R. 77 AKA the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2019 I support and recommend the passage of the House Bill H.R. 77 AKA -the Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2019 — which would amend the U.S. Code to prohibit the issuance of national injunctions (sometimes also called “non-party injunctions”) by federal courts. National injunctions prohibit the enforcement of a federal law or regulation not only against the plaintiff, but also in any other instance pending the final outcome of the case. The Injunctive Authority Clarification Act of 2018 restores the proper balance of power between the branches of government. It has the support of a bipartisan group of some of America’s leading professors of remedies, federal courts, and administrative law, who recognize the compelling need for Congress to enact a limit on national injunctions. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law, and with these new guidelines, this Department is going to continue to fight them.” Courts’ use of national injunctions, which bypasses normal legislative channels, in order to pursue an individual judges’ political agendas. This makes it harder for the government to function, and allows individual judges to usurp other judges’ ruling. SneakyPete......... 👎🏻👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️👩‍⚖️👎🏻. 2*15*19..........
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Only the Supreme Court should be able to do that, lower Federal judges should only be able to impose injunctions in the circuits and districts where they preside.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    The Constitution gives courts the authority to decide cases for the parties before them, not to act as super-legislators for everyone across the country based on a single case."
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely. No one judge should have more power than the president, or congress
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    I have never understood how a liberal judge in California can make a decision affecting how I live my life and the lives of my family. In view of the fact that these liberal advocates judge shops to get what they want and force that decision for the rest of the country. Dissenting rulings in numerous judicial jurisdictions trigger an appellate court review and sometimes a Supreme Court decision, that’s the way it’s suppose to work. 🇺🇸
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    No national injunctions. Judges are not legislators!
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Co-equal branches of government. Did these people not read the Constitution???
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    District courts should only have a their Authority limited to the area their court over sees
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Judges should not be all powerful
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE