• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Can judges "tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for"

  • Total voters
    88

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.
 
BirdinHand said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.
 
Jumping to conclusions, aren’t you?

Contempt proceedings are still active last I checked.
 
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.
 
AZRWinger said:
The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.
Click to expand...
No. The issue is the total civic ignorance of Trump supporters.
 
rahl said:
No. The issue is the total civic ignorance of Trump supporters.
Click to expand...
Two consecutive posts devoted to insults with no attempt to address the facts. Brilliant.
 
AZRWinger said:
Two consecutive posts devoted to insults with no attempt to address the facts. Brilliant.
Click to expand...
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.
 
KingLeo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
State law vs federal
Athanasius68 said:
The only court that has national jurisdiction is SCOTUS, and maybe those tax courts that exist.
Click to expand...
You need to take a basic 6th grade civics class. All federal courts have National jurisdiction regarding federal laws.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Peter said:
But surely the judges can't do anything but follow the people and the people will have spoken?
Click to expand...
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.
 
BirdinHand said:
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?
Click to expand...
Is this also true if the judge in Amarillo finds that contraceptive distribution violates the Comstock Act?
 
I wish you were ours and could replace ICE Barbie because I have no doubt you know what habeas corpus means.
 
AZRWinger said:
The issue is District court judges abusing class certification to self promote themselves into national law givers.
Click to expand...

No, it isn’t. All federal courts deal with federal issues. That means national.
 
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.
 
Ganondagan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Noodlegawd said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
devildavid said:
No, it isn’t. All federal courts deal with federal issues. That means national.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…