you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 1 month ago (22 children)

The US Justice System was recently handicapped by banning Federal appeals court rulings from being applied nationwide. As a result, the compromised and corrupt Supreme Court is the one and only court in the entire nation that's allowed to make a nationwide ruling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    This is a misleading characterization of what actually happened.

    The Supreme Court did not ban federal appeals courts from issuing rulings that apply throughout their circuits, nor did it declare that only the Supreme Court can make decisions with broad legal effect.

    What the Court addressed was the use of nationwide (universal) injunctions, where a single district judge blocks a federal policy across the entire country before the case has fully worked its way through the courts. Those are not the same thing as appellate court precedents.

    The practical effect is that different circuits may reach different conclusions until the Supreme Court resolves the conflict. That's how the federal judicial system has traditionally functioned. Appeals court decisions are still binding within their own circuits and continue to shape the law.

    If you want to argue that limiting nationwide injunctions is a bad policy, that's a legitimate position. But saying the decision "banned federal appeals court rulings from being applied nationwide" or made the Supreme Court "the only court allowed to make nationwide rulings" is inaccurate. It conflates two different legal concepts to support a broader political narrative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (18 children)

    This grossly mischaracterizes things.

    The defining feature of the US Court system is how slow it is. We are talking about federal policies that are corrupt, racist, and unconstitutional.

    The legal concepts of no injunctions and no legal power are effectively the same when discussing this issue because without nationwide injunctions, there is no mechanism to stop corrupt federal executive policy.

    The Supreme Court declines to hear most cases, they cherry pick what they want to review to create the illusion of a fair system, and occasionally when there is a large clear conflict between circuits then it means the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case in a year while harm is ongoing.

    You're saying appeals courts are still binding on their own circuits, but we are talking about federal nationwide policy and executive branch that just ignores rulings unless there is enforcement.

    The correct way for this to have proceeded previously was for a federal appellate court to rule it's unconstitutional to randomly harass people on the street because it violates the 4th Amendment without probable cause, rule it's an ongoing pattern and they keep ignoring the law and so a simple legal instruction is insufficient, and the instruct the federal marshals to seize ice infrastructure, their computers and phones in DC, and destroy them, and then to stay the order while it gets an emergency appeal, forcing the Supreme Court to rule on this.

    But the Supreme Court doesn't even have to rule on these issues now. The federal courts are powerless to do anything and the Supreme Court declines to hear it. Also, the Supreme Court held racism was a valid reason for detaining people, so ICE agents are fully allowed to randomly harass, detain, threaten and subdue people who are not white or not black, because that's what these racist MAGA hicks want: they want a reduction in brown people, and they know they can't easily harass and kill black people anymore, so they are just going after brown people instead.

    Let's just call it what it is: racist white people don't like so many Latinos and other brown skinned people, they have noticed that white people are a smaller portion of the USA and white people are having fewer children, so they have enacted racist policies and elected a corrupt Supreme Court and selected a racist government in power to find ways to change this.

    To pretend that the federal courts still have some sort of power in this situation is intellectually dishonest and mischaracterizes what is going on. In theory, decisions are binding on lower courts still. But what does it matter? Does a court matter if no one listens to it and then its power is taken away?

    The racist MAGA hicks made a calculation that they could come into power, enact laws that would have previously been deemed illegal, pack the courts with conservatives, and start a campaign to reduce the brown population of the USA and also that liberals and brown people would not take up arms and try to physically stop them. And that calculation was right. Liberals are notoriously anti-gun, anti-gun ownership, and for extreme gun regulations; they are also the party of civility. So... MAGA was right.

    What happens when things change and liberals come into power? Will there be hearings? A tribunal? The Supreme Court has sanctioned all of this under racist, intellectually dishonest language and so on what grounds can people be punished for evil? There are no grounds unless there's a Constitutional amendment. It won't happen. Even today, eminent domain is being used to seize land for data centers while black people never got their 40 acres or their mule. The horrible truth is MAGA got away with it and will get away with it. Liberals do not have the audacity and courage, nor the voting numbers, to do anything of substance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

    What you're saying isn't necessarily wrong. You're just piling a bunch of unrelated issues on top of what I said, gerrymandering, racism, politics, public policy, what the law should be, and so on.

    None of that was the question. Those are separate discussions.

    What I object to are blanket statements wrapped in propaganda. The original claim was grossly inaccurate. Federal appeals courts still make binding decisions within their own circuits. That's how the federal judiciary has always functioned.

    As I said, whether the Supreme Court made the right decision in the first place is an entirely different debate.

    Honestly, I don't understand what any of the points you raised have to do with what I was actually saying. My comment was narrowly focused on correcting a factual claim.

    This is exactly what frustrates me about social media. People make wildly inaccurate statements based on ignorance, and they get repeated as if they're true. That's why I commented, to clarify the issue.

    Some of what you said contains a kernel of truth, but it's mixed with a lot of ideological framing that only muddies the discussion. It doesn't address my point, and it makes an already complicated topic even more confusing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

    I was saying even if you were technically correct, the original poster was implying that now the supreme court is the only one who can make nationwide policy on stopping illegal nationwide federal actions and your reply implied normal legitimacy and remedy powers, as though it's not that bad.

    and if you only meant to provide a narrow technical correction, then you shouldn't consider my reply as criticism, but rather my perspective on the broader perspective.

    i wasn't calling you racist, or disagreeing on ideological grounds, i was saying that your limited technical answer so grossly missed the larger situation that it undercut the actual legitimacy crisis that does and should exist for this branch. it is not business as usual, some of the conditions for these detainees are terrible and reminiscent of nazi-regime treatment of others, and the fact that nothing can be done about it at any federal level except at 1 court that refuses to hear most things and is extremely slow to hear matters means that it's not the same situation as it once was

    this is not ideological framing that muddies the waters. your narrow technical analysis nit-picking at the literal meaning and missing the implication is unintentionally or intentionally implying there's still some legitimate functional system that is working correctly instead of something completely broken.

    it's not muddying the discussion to point on the bigger perspective. Your thinking is similar to a statement like "Many black people frequently broke Jim Crow laws and thus were criminals." Yes, that might be technically true, but saying it like that with no contextualization unintentionally suggests things in a problematic manner. A literal denotative view of words and their meaning and a technical analysis that misses things does not mean someone pointing out the larger perspective is clouding the situation and there is a risk in someone using erudition to distract from the fact of how horrible things are, and that's what you were doing, possibly unintentionally. I can tell you're smart, but a technical correction of something like that risks implying there's no crisis of legitimacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    The original comment insinuated that only the Supreme Court has influence over national policy. Once again, that is factually incorrect.

    Every federal court has authority within its own jurisdiction. If a federal court rules against an executive policy, that ruling has legal effect within that jurisdiction. Those decisions can also serve as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions, even though they are not binding outside their circuit.

    The difference is that Supreme Court decisions are binding nationwide. That is part of the separation of powers and serves as a check on the executive and legislative branches.

    The other examples you're bringing up are unrelated to what I was actually saying. They don't address the point I made.

    I'm fully aware of the current state of the country and the ways the Supreme Court has shaped policy over the years.

    I have no idea what the Jim Crow example was supposed to demonstrate, because it has nothing to do with the point under discussion.

    The Supreme Court does not simply make policy on a whim. It decides cases based on the law, including the Constitution, federal statutes, and other applicable legal authority. When those decisions invalidate or uphold executive actions, they can have nationwide policy consequences.

    I understand the implications of that. Those consequences can be beneficial or detrimental.

    I'm not downplaying the current state of the country. I understand the concerns being raised.

    What I corrected was a factually incorrect claim. There was no emotional context, political bias, or ideological argument in my comment. I simply corrected an inaccurate statement.

    You're adding a number of unrelated examples and arguments that don't address my original point. I understand what you're trying to say, and on some level I even agree with you. But it still has nothing to do with what I originally said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I don't know the answer to the following:

    Is the current state of the law that a federal appellate judge can say "Okay, for this area of the country, I am issuing an injunction that ICE can no longer operate until they submit a report to a court monitor explaining corrective actions they will take and if anyone violates that order I will have us marshals arrest them?"

    because i am under the impression that the new decision is they can't do that. that it would be challenged immediately, the sc would against say you can't issue blanket injunctions that impact federal policy, and nothing would occur.

    i believe my unrelated examples were related, so we disagree. this isn't a court briefing, this is the internet: unemotional and narrow language has no place here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    You're arguing a different issue than I am.

    First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you're going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.

    Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn't somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.

    Third, I'm not interested in taking the conversation where you're trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That's a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn't the one I was having.

    Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn't do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

    Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.

    But this isn't being argued in a court with narrow technical rules and extremely precise procedural requirements, it was being argued online... You're looking at the argument from the perspective of a narrow technical argument from a procedural court perspective, I am looking it how it realistically affects people in their actual lives... which is what makes sense... for an internet discussion.

    You're clearly a lawyer or a judge or something, and it wouldn't surprise me if you've filed your fair share of motions that weren't just in a local court, but you're still wrong on this and I'm not conceding. Yes, my responses would not be appropriate for a court filing... but also, they make sense outside of that situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago*

    Dude, don't you realize you have no chance with this argument? Mechoman is the chair of the Nebraska Board of Tourism! They're the genius mind behind those award-winning slogans we all remember, like *"Nebraska: We're relevant, damnit!" and "Nebraska: Don't scratch it, that will just make it worse!".

    Seriously though, if you wanna get stuck in with them I can really recommend it - poking holes in their arguments is like bubble wrap for the rhetorical soul - but I just wanted to chime in and mention that you've brought some truly excellent points, and to make sure nobody's taking this goober too seriously.

    There's a lot of stuff that either sucks or is downright horrible in the world right now, honestly even more than there was last month, and it's really not worth letting some people add their BS to that burden.

    Anyways, you seem cool. I hope your day/night/timezone is going and continues to go well for you (and I hope you don't take the nebraska jokes personally, they're a whole other thing I'm riffing on with them in another thread).

    Glad tidings and peace.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (9 children)

    You don't have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.

    The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn't somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn't change what the words mean.

    And frankly, there's nothing for you to concede. You've already admitted that I'm right and you're wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn't a courtroom, I'm somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.

    "You're right in the only place where it matters, therefore you're wrong here."

    Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn't come up with a response for weeks, and what you've finally come up with is still bullshit.

    Don't worry about it. I got you.

    Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (8 children)

    Context does change what words mean. sudo rm -rf / means one thing in a terminal and means nothing in a legal brief.

    You're narrow technical view of one aspect of law, missing the bigger picture, is an egregious instance of a lack of context implying things.

    For example, if someone said "Hitler made various economic improvements that were helpful" and that's it, the person is likely a racist evil piece of shit, especially if it's on a neo-Nazi forum. I suppose technically in a history paper the statement in and of itself would not be egregious or false.

    In the same way, if someone is making the case appellate courts are still binding on lower courts, without mentioning that appellate courts not being able to create nationwide injunctions or impact nationwide federal policy when the Supreme Court is slow as molasses and cherry picks what to hear, and when humanitarian violations are going on that are truly evil, that person is either malevolent, lacking rhetorical skills, or technically true but writing something that's problematic for the context.

    Look, I admire your 115 IQ and I find your arrogance alluring, and perhaps if we were in the same area and you were at least decent looking and gay or bi or bored, I'd let you fuck me once or twice because sometimes I like dumb guys who think they are smarter than they are, but even you have to understand why context does impact meaning. I have not admitted to being wrong.

    It's not to say that a lack of additional text makes an analysis bad, but using court language on an Internet forum doesn't make you right, just like an economist saying on an Internet forum with no context how "Slavery was beneficial for GDP during 1784" is wrong and stupid.

    Nice Em Dash, by the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (7 children)

    Okay — so we have an appeal to my “IQ” — an argument that context doesn’t matter — an offer for me to have sex with you, but only if I’m gay or bi — and a criticism of how our law works.

    So — essentially — the ramblings of an idiot.

    I have made my case — I stated my points plainly — and I have provided the relevant information without any emotional context attached to it. If you don’t like the information — you are perfectly free to continue not liking it.

    I’m done with your dumb ass — good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (6 children)

    technically it was only if you're decent looking and gay or bi and there was no appeal to your IQ, 1 SD is an insult not a compliment.

    also — — — — — — — — —

    It's not the lack of emotional context that's the problem. It's about the false implication that there's some underlying legitimacy when there is no legal mechanism to slow or stop unconstitutional policies except wait for a very slow judiciary to possibly act.

    Are you a conservative? Why the fuck are you even on Lemmy? Shouldn't you be on Reddit or Truth Social?

    Being non-emotional may work great in briefs, but implying legitimacy when there's a jurisprudential crisis caused by slowness and consolidation of power is ignorant. You're either a conservative and don't care or uninsightful.

    I regert — offering to let you have sex with me if you were decent looking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (5 children)

    Oh, trust me, there isn't a universe where I have sex with you. So relax. I have standards.

    Once again, I was correcting a factual issue. I was not supporting, condemning, or otherwise commenting on the implications of the facts at hand.

    And, once again, the way the Supreme Court approached this issue is historically consistent with how the United States has functioned. The underlying idea is that courts are supposed to be impartial, so, on paper, the system should work. I have already acknowledged that, in practice, that isn't always the case.

    But that's not the point of my comment.

    It's funny, this happens constantly on this platform. I'll correct an objective factual error or fact-check a post, and people get all butthurt about it (no pun intended).

    You don't have to like the facts for them to be true. And I don't have to agree with something to accurately state what the facts are.

    If your response to someone correcting a factual error is to assume they're endorsing the position behind it, that's a problem with your reading comprehension, not with the facts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    This is like in a global warming debate someone going "You're all saying global warming is real. Well, the temperature actually declined between August of 2026 and September of 2026." It's technically true, but anyone saying that would still be an idiot because they are pointing out something technically true as red-herring to distract from the more problematic reality of the situation.

    The way the Supreme Court is approaching this issue is not historically consistent except for aberrations like the Trail of Tears debacle. Never has there been such a concentration of executive power that can't be overridden with reasonable speed when there are constitutional concerns and arguably extraordinary irreparable harms. Whether you agree or disagree with this administration, this is "not business as usual" politics or business as usual jurisprudence and to imply otherwise is intellectually dishonest, even if you are merely juxtaposing truthful facts in a manner to imply legitimacy and order.

    You remind me of Ben Shapiro. Probably smart enough to do well on LSATs and a law exam, probably smart enough to fool people of average intelligence with sophistry and rhetorical juggling, but I see through you, I see the legitimacy you are trying to imply that misses the problem, which is humanitarian and constitutional problems that have no reasonably expedient way of being addressed until extreme harms are done, and you aren't fooling me, no matter what emphasis on denotative facts you push.

    I am glad for both of us that you have standards and sad for both of us that you aren't willing to properly use bad puns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)

    You didn't make a pun, I didn't commit a red herring fallacy, and your analogies don't work.

    You clearly don't know what a pun is, you don't understand what a red herring is, and you keep resorting to analogies because you cannot actually refute the argument I'm making. Instead of addressing my points, you've resorted to logical fallacies and straw-manning me into a conservative and a Ben Shapiro supporter, positions I never expressed and that have nothing to do with the argument.

    Yes, you committed a straw man. My argument is that I am factually correct about the issue we're discussing. Rather than addressing that claim, you've replaced it with a position I don't hold because that version is easier for you to attack. That's a textbook straw man.

    But honestly, none of this even matters. This isn't a formal debate where I need to keep cataloging every fallacy you commit. You're arguing against an established fact, and I should have known better than to waste my time trying to reason you out of a position you clearly aren't willing to reconsider.

    At this point, you've become more than useless to this conversation. I'm done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)

    And you have no apparent interest in having sex with me, so I guess I'm done too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments