(Poll) JD Vance: judges cannot "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for"

[Rogue Valley]

American Court Hierarchy | United States Legal System Hierarchy

Know about American Court Hierarchy.The United States of America has many court systems including the Federal Court system and the 50 State systems.

hierarchystructure.com

Federal Court of America​

The Federal Court System is basically divided into districts and circuits. There is atleast one federal district in every state but some more populous states can have multiple districts as well. Mostly, the federal lawsuits start at the district level in a federal court. Most of these courses are civil and not criminal. The following is a hierarchy of the courts at Federal level:


US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court is the highest level court in the American court system and its legal interpretations are the final word on the law. There are a total of 9 justices who work or sit in the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and are approved by the US Senate.

The United States Courts of Appeal

This is the intermediate federal appellate court system which operate under a system of mandatory review and this means that it must hear all appeals of right from the lower courts.

The United States District Court

These are the general federal trial courts which have jurisdiction to hear appeals from such tribunals.

State courts of America​

State trial courts are the lowest tier in the state’s court system. Most states have two levels of trial courts which are the trial courts with limited jurisdiction and trial courts with specific jurisdiction. The following is the hierarchy of the States courts of America:

• Trial courts with limited jurisdiction-municipal courts, magistrate courts, county courts, justice of the peace courts, juvenile cases, minor criminal cases, traffic violation.
• Courts of general jurisdiction-circuit courts, district courts, superior courts, court of common pleas,
• There are a number of Article 1 courts which have appellate jurisdiction over certain specific matters and these include the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim, Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Bankruptcy Courts, Immigration courts, court of Federal Claims and Tax Court.

 

[AZRWinger]

Explain how your rationalize EOs that have federal reach in every district but want district courts to only apply to a single jurisdiction.

Federal law and EOs = apply everywhere.

Rulings regarding those apply everywhere.

What do you think the district in Federal District court stand for?

The SCOTUS slapped down would be king Boasberg when he attempted to rule on the case of 5 plaintiffs in Texas from his DC district courtroom. No doubt the Democrats who forum shopped the case to a sympathetic petty tyrant were disappointed.

Federal district judges self promote into national law givers by certifying district cases before them as a national class at the plaintiff's request. Granting this petition has become almost routine for activist judges anxious for a star turn as defenders against the duely elected Bad Orange Man. Like the wave of Democrat lawsuits attempting to nullify the election, class certification is a mechanism with some merit being abused by bitter deadender Democrats.

 

[AZRWinger]

There are Federal courts in every state that can make decisions on what the Federal government does, whether the president or the congress. That is exactly what they deal with being Federal courts, even if inferior to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court doesn’t deal with every little thing that is challenged regarding the president or the congress. What do you suppose Federal means?

The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.

 

[BirdinHand]

What do you think the district in Federal District court stand for?

The SCOTUS slapped down would be king Boasberg when he attempted to rule on the case of 5 plaintiffs in Texas from his DC district courtroom. No doubt the Democrats who forum shopped the case to a sympathetic petty tyrant were disappointed.

Federal district judges self promote into national law givers by certifying district cases before them as a national class at the plaintiff's request. Granting this petition has become almost routine for activist judges anxious for a star turn as defenders against the duely elected Bad Orange Man. Like the wave of Democrat lawsuits attempting to nullify the election, class certification is a mechanism with some merit being abused by bitter deadender Democrats.

Jumping to conclusions, aren’t you?

Contempt proceedings are still active last I checked.

 

[rahl]

What do you think the district in Federal District court stand for?

The SCOTUS slapped down would be king Boasberg when he attempted to rule on the case of 5 plaintiffs in Texas from his DC district courtroom. No doubt the Democrats who forum shopped the case to a sympathetic petty tyrant were disappointed.

Federal district judges self promote into national law givers by certifying district cases before them as a national class at the plaintiff's request. Granting this petition has become almost routine for activist judges anxious for a star turn as defenders against the duely elected Bad Orange Man. Like the wave of Democrat lawsuits attempting to nullify the election, class certification is a mechanism with some merit being abused by bitter deadender Democrats.

You need to actually read what the scotus ruled in this case. Then you need to go and take a 6th grade civic ms class.

 

[rahl]

The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.

No. The issue is the total civic ignorance of Trump supporters.

 

[AZRWinger]

No. The issue is the total civic ignorance of Trump supporters.

Two consecutive posts devoted to insults with no attempt to address the facts. Brilliant.

 

[j brown's body]

Classic authoritarianism

J.D. Vance Believes It’s Legal If It’s Popular

Loading…

nymag.com

 

[rahl]

Two consecutive posts devoted to insults with no attempt to address the facts. Brilliant.

The facts have been explained to you. You keep repeating hilariously ignorant nonsense.

FEDERAL judges ruling on FEDERAL laws apply FEDERALLY, which is nationwide. This is basic civics.

 

[Athanasius68]

That is what they do now.
Federal district courts rule on matters pertaining to federal law or related to the federal government for the entire US.

Last year, District Judge Cannon of the Sothern district of Florida, in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the criminal charges against Donald Trump that she was overseeing. She said that appointment of Jack Smith as the prosecutor violated the USA Constitution.
So why did the same Mr. Smith continue to prosecute his charges in the DC District Court, in the DC Circuit court of Appeals? Why didn't Judge Chutkan also dismiss the charges there, given that Judge Cannon ruled that Smith was unconstitutionally named?
Its real simple-- because Judge Cannon has no jurisdiction in DC courts. Her jurisdiction was in the southern district of Florida.
And nowhere else.

But wait-- there is more:
Lets say Harris won the election and chose to continue to criminally prosecute her former political opponent. Mr. Trump would have eventually gone before Judge Chutkan to have the charges dismissed, citing at least Judge Cannon's ruling.
And guess what? Even if Judge Chutkan agreed with Judge Cannon she could no dismiss the charges. And thats because the DC circuit court had already ruled that Smiths appt was constitutional. She was bound by it.
But because the jurisdiction of the DC circuit court does not include south florida, Cannon was not bound by it.

The only court that has national jurisdiction is SCOTUS, and maybe those tax courts that exist.

 

[KingLeo]

Last year, District Judge Cannon of the Sothern district of Florida, in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the criminal charges against Donald Trump that she was overseeing. She said that appointment of Jack Smith as the prosecutor violated the USA Constitution.
So why did the same Mr. Smith continue to prosecute his charges in the DC District Court, in the DC Circuit court of Appeals? Why didn't Judge Chutkan also dismiss the charges there, given that Judge Cannon ruled that Smith was unconstitutionally named?
Its real simple-- because Judge Cannon has no jurisdiction in DC courts. Her jurisdiction was in the southern district of Florida.
And nowhere else.

But wait-- there is more:
Lets say Harris won the election and chose to continue to criminally prosecute her former political opponent. Mr. Trump would have eventually gone before Judge Chutkan to have the charges dismissed, citing at least Judge Cannon's ruling.
And guess what? Even if Judge Chutkan agreed with Judge Cannon she could no dismiss the charges. And thats because the DC circuit court had already ruled that Smiths appt was constitutional. She was bound by it.
But because the jurisdiction of the DC circuit court does not include south florida, Cannon was not bound by it.

The only court that has national jurisdiction is SCOTUS, and maybe those tax courts that exist.

Federal courts oversee federal laws.
It does not matter where the charges are filed, they are still federal laws not regional laws

 

[rahl]

Last year, District Judge Cannon of the Sothern district of Florida, in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the criminal charges against Donald Trump that she was overseeing. She said that appointment of Jack Smith as the prosecutor violated the USA Constitution.
So why did the same Mr. Smith continue to prosecute his charges in the DC District Court, in the DC Circuit court of Appeals? Why didn't Judge Chutkan also dismiss the charges there, given that Judge Cannon ruled that Smith was unconstitutionally named?
Its real simple-- because Judge Cannon has no jurisdiction in DC courts. Her jurisdiction was in the southern district of Florida.
And nowhere else.

But wait-- there is more:
Lets say Harris won the election and chose to continue to criminally prosecute her former political opponent. Mr. Trump would have eventually gone before Judge Chutkan to have the charges dismissed, citing at least Judge Cannon's ruling.
And guess what? Even if Judge Chutkan agreed with Judge Cannon she could no dismiss the charges. And thats because the DC circuit court had already ruled that Smiths appt was constitutional. She was bound by it.
But because the jurisdiction of the DC circuit court does not include south florida, Cannon was not bound by it.

State law vs federal

The only court that has national jurisdiction is SCOTUS, and maybe those tax courts that exist.

You need to take a basic 6th grade civics class. All federal courts have National jurisdiction regarding federal laws.

 

[Atomic Kid]

What, if anything, does the 10A mean to you?

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the relationship between the federal government and state governments, stating that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. In essence, it clarifies that the federal government's power is limited to what the Constitution explicitly grants it.

The Bill of Rights: What Does it Say?

Español Accordion [accordion classes="" id="59774" expand_first="true"][/accordion] Back to Main Page How Did it Happen?

www.archives.gov

The 10th Amendment means absolutely nothing when it comes to immigration. The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that the federal government has the exclusive power to regulate immigration, meaning states cannot enact their own immigration laws. Immigration law and policy are the purview of the US federal government. That is why, when these federal court injunctions against immigration executive orders are determined to be unconstitutional or illegal, they apply nationally.

 

[j brown's body]

MAGA wants a dictatorship.

 

[natman]

But surely the judges can't do anything but follow the people and the people will have spoken?

No. The people are every bit as capable of supporting an unconstitutional law / EO as Congress and/or the president. If the law / EO violates the Constitution, the court's job is to declare it so.

 

[coyote505]

Federal laws apply nationally, not jurisdictionally.

I don’t understand this argument that an injunction regarding a federal EO or a federal law should only apply to a district.

I truly don’t.

Care to explain how that works?

Is this also true if the judge in Amarillo finds that contraceptive distribution violates the Comstock Act?

 

[choiceone]

Your comments make no sense.

Your first sentence: "The role of the executive as well as the role of the judiciary is codified in the constitution."

The constitution defines the roles of the three branches of US government: i- President, ii=the elected chambers (Senate, House of Representatives);and iii-Judiciary,

It is exactly for that reason the President can not unilaterally impose laws by Executive Order. If that was the case there would be no need for a Judiciary or elected chambers and all laws would simply be decided by Presidents at their unilateral prerogative during their 5 year term.

That is what you support from what I read-this unilateral declaration and imposition of decrees by Trump with noa accountability to anyone else.

In fact where as it is as you say "codified" in the constutiton, the right to seek legal judgement and ruling on a law or unilateral declaration of the President, and the court declares that declaration illegal fundamental rules of justice apply and that is to say no President can ignore the court ruling. You can not break the law to impose a Presidential decree.

The problem is though its difficult for a court alone to enforce their judgement, The reality is they can hold the President in contempt and could fine or put the President in jail for contempt but we have never had that happen before. Never in the history of the US until Trump did you Americans choose to elect a convicted felon with a history of repeatedly breaking the law.

In fact those of you Magas who voted him in, believe he should break the law and engage in the very corruption, behaviour he accuses others of. You believe he should not be questioned for a continuing display of constant lying, fabrications and paranoid delusional accusations all being exposedas quickly as he presents them.

You Magas clearly do not care about what the principle is called the fundamental rule of justice so you keep repeating that Trump can break any law he wants including violating the constitution because he was elected. So you repeat the above and then contradict it like the above person does thinking the constitution or some other mysterious code allows the President to ignore court rulings or the constitution.

You then stated in your second sentence: "Judge shopped district judges are usurping presidential responsibility."

The term "Judge shopped" makes no legal sense. Judges at the lower levels are elected. Their decisions can be appealed to higher courts of also elected Judges. There is no Judge shopping and at each level the basis for appeal is based not on Judge shopping but the rules of law. At the final level of court appeal. The Supreme Court of the US which has decided decisions unanimously to state Trump's decrees have veen illegal, the very Judges were picked by TRUMP and not elected so your comments are past moronic.


Finally in your third sentence you stated: "That the last president ignored that responsibility doesn't require that the current one does as well."

Please explain what court rulings Joe Biden during his Presidency defied. Please state the court decisions he defied with examples. You will not because he never has. In fact when reading your last sentence what you are trying to argue is that since Biden broke laws, Trump can. If Biden broke laws, which he did not, that does not make Trump breaking laws acceptable-you engage in an imbecilic argument that two wrongs make a right or what is called as well an "what about ism". Breaking a law does not justfy breaking the law. I appreciate in your case you think ICE should break laws to enforce them using that kind of reasoning.

I wish you were ours and could replace ICE Barbie because I have no doubt you know what habeas corpus means.

 

[devildavid]

The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.

No, it isn’t. All federal courts deal with federal issues. That means national.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The power of district court judges to issue national injunctions has been abused, and specifically has been abused during the two Trump administrations. The Supreme Court will eventually have to rule on that power, and I sincerely hope the court bans it's use. The Democratic party wants to hogtie the President and conduct our country's business by district court injunctions, 800 or so mini-presidents.

You're suggesting that federal laws should be different, according to different districts. If a federal judge cannot make a decision that is binding on the president nationwide, the president will simply continue to behave as he has, just in a different district. This means the president can AND WILL abuse the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, according to whatever judges he has appointed.

Is that what you want?

Now you can choose to argue that president Trump would NEVER abuse the people's constitutional safeguards enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You can argue that Trump is just such a decent guy that he would never do that, even though you want him to have the power to do so.

WHAT YOU CANNOT ARGUE is that the next president, or the one after that, or the one 10 administrations from now will not abuse the power you want to give Trump today.

In other words, be careful what you wish for.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The Republican party is in power, Trump is President, and the scope of the judiciary is being challenged. I think that's a good idea.

And of course, you would likewise think it would be a good thing if a Democratic president would not be hindered by judicial rulings, either, right?

Be careful! Hypocrisy is looming.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Let me put it this way: When a district court in Texas declares a ban on 11+ round magazines unconstitutional, does California instantly stop enforcing it's own magazine ban?

As long as California's STATE law does not conflic with federal law, they don't have to change a thing. If their ban does in fact conflict, then yes, they have to come into compliance with federal law. It has ALWAYS been this way.
Jeez, dude! Take a basic civics course.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Edited for length


I agree, your comments make no

There is nothing in the Constitution empowering district court judges to second guess the POTUS. For example, the AEA charges the President with determining if an invasion is taking place to use the powers in the act. President Trump issued a finding that the flood of illegal aliens encouraged by the Biden regime is an invasion. Naturally activist judges determined they usurp the power of the President in furtherance of Democrat lawsuits designed to nullify the election.

The Presidential finding of an invasion isn't a Presidential decree. It's an exercise of his authority under the AEA. As such the courts have no Constitutional authority to second guess guess. But that doesn't stop Democrats and their pet judges from doing exactly that.

That's right it is difficult for courts to enforce their overreaching decrees second guessing the President acting within his legal authority. That's why the Constitution envisions these matters being handled by Congress. They have the authority to write new, repeal, or modify laws. They can override the President's veto. They can cut off spending. Ultimately they can impeach the President, remove them from office and bar them from seeking reelection.


Orange Man Bad demagoguery edited for length.

Judge shopping in this context means choosing to have a case heard before a sympathetic judge. Despite the supposedly random assignment of judges to cases Democrats have remarkable luck in getting their barrage of Trump political attack cases assigned to Trump hating judges like Chutkan and Boasberg.

Federal judges, district, appeals and SCOTUS are all appointed.

President Biden actively undermined immigration law with executive decrees creating an open border crisis.

Speaker Johnson: 64 Biden policies created border chaos

(The Center Square) – U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has identified 64 Biden administration polices he argues created the border crisis.

www.thecentersquare.com

Yet no Democrats rushed to hand picked district courts to file suits seeking nationwide injunctive relief.

How much power do you want to hand to the next Democratic president? Do you really want to have laws that say the Democratic president gets to ignore federal district court rulings?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Is this also true if the judge in Amarillo finds that contraceptive distribution violates the Comstock Act?

Until that federal decision is reversed by a higher court, yes. And the parties affected need to comply with the court's decision during any appeal.

 

[reinaert]

While agreeing with many of the sentiments, it's maybe worth noting that they still tend to handwave away what power is. At some point along its timeline, someone is going to attain an office or position with the use of its power over others as their primary motivation.

 

[Ganondagan]

No, it isn’t. All federal courts deal with federal issues. That means national.

Yes, federal courts deal with federal issues but that isn't the real issue at hand is it? The real issue is politicization of the system through judge shopping.