Judicial Corruption and Misdirection
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Just being reported the Chief Justice Roberts put out a statement in response to Trump's Truth Social post that impeachment should not be used as political punishment against Federal judges.
Laura Loomer Uncovers an Enormous Taxpayer-Funded Conflict of Interest Involving Obama Judge Who Ordered Trump Admin to Stop Deporting Criminal Aliens Mid-Flight and HIS OWN DAUGHTER
The case was brought by the Marxist, America-hating ACLU and Democracy Forward.
But the order came too late. Two flights from the U.S. carrying nearly 300 Venezuelan and other gang members landed in El Salvador despite Judge James Boasberg’s emergency order. This prompted a mocking reply from the country’s president, Nayib Bukele.
Now, independent journalist Laura Loomer discovered a massive conflict of interest between Boasberg and his own daughter. It turns out Katherine Boasberg, the daughter, works for a far-left organization called Partners for Justice that opposes “mass incarceration” of violent criminals and strongly opposes deporting illegals, including violent felons.
Unsurprisingly, Katherine Boasberg is so woke she has pronouns in her bio.
From Loomer:
The news gets even worse. Loomer also uncovered a screenshot showing that Katherine’s employer, Emily Galvin-Almanza, tweeted an article about Judge Boasberg blocking Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan gang members.
LOOK:
On top of this, Partners for Justice receives 76% of its funding from U.S. grants. This means taxpayers are funding this conflict of interest and pro-criminal activity.
Because of this, Loomer says that Boasberg has no choice but to recuse himself, saying his family is a national security threat.
“Given his daughter’s employment at a group that advocates for criminal illegal Aliens & is funded by US Government grants, Judge Boasberg should not be granted any sensitive information about deportation flights. His family is a national security threat,” she writes.
Is there ANY rationale that allows ANY district judge - heck, any of hundreds of judges - to simply pipe up and say, sorry Trump, you can't do that, I'm gonna put a pause on that -- ?
Forgive my ignorance - but I always thought the extent of judges authority was to rule on cases brought before them?
So isn't this WAAAAAY out of a judge's job to butt in and make a pronouncement - sans any case in front of him?
Forgive my ignorance - but I always thought the extent of judges authority was to rule on cases brought before them?
So isn't this WAAAAAY out of a judge's job to butt in and make a pronouncement - sans any case in front of him?
Well, the ACLU ran to the judge when they got word of the operation and asked him for an injunction, so they put it in front of him.
We need to put in writ in front of a friendly judge, expelling the ACLU to Guantánamo.
I don't think so ... and this has been a problem, some rando District judge thinks they have authority over actions of the Federal Gov
Justice Neil Gorsuch is not pleased with judges setting nationwide policy. But how common is it?
"Extreme forum shopping"
Morley said a single judge's power to enter a nationwide injunction incentivizes "extreme forum shopping," in which plaintiffs strategically bring their case in a specific court before a judge who will be most favorable to their arguments."There are outlier judges on all sides," he said. "You can go to that outlier judge and are systematically having the most controversial, cutting-edge, hot-button constitutional issues being settled and resolved by the ideological outliers rather than a more representative cross section of the judiciary."
In fact, the examination of nationwide injunctions published in the Harvard Law Review found that 92% were entered by judges appointed by Democratic presidents during the Trump administration. For the Biden administration, that portion grew to 100% imposed by judges named to the federal bench by Republican presidents.
"If you see that kind of pattern, it cannot help but call the judiciary into disrepute," said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "It doesn't look like they're applying the law in a clear way. It will erode the judiciary's legitimacy, no question about it."
Bagley, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about these injunctions in 2020, pointed to one key factor behind their rise: Politics.
Courts have over the past few years become the arena for hashing out high-profile political disputes, as congressional gridlock puts pressure on the president to take executive action to implement his policy agenda, Bagley said.
When presidents try to act unilaterally in "unusual or aggressive ways," he continued, "there's a ripe opportunity for a lawsuit, and if you're bringing one of these lawsuits, you're going to do your damndest to bring it in front of a friendly forum."
A judge who is more receptive to the challengers' arguments, he said, may come to see a nationwide remedy as the more appropriate means of reining in a president.
"It's a combination of a bunch of factors coming together: congressional sclerosis, presidential adventurism and judicial excessiveness," Bagley said.
how do district court judges have authority to issue nationwide injunctions
District court judges in the United States have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions based on their inherent powers under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the federal judiciary and grants it the power to decide "cases" and "controversies." This authority is further shaped by statutory jurisdiction, precedent, and the equitable powers of federal courts.
Here’s how it works:
- Jurisdiction and Equitable Powers: Federal district courts are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear a wide range of cases involving federal law, constitutional issues, or disputes between parties from different states. As courts of equity, they have long-standing authority to issue injunctions—orders that direct a party to do or refrain from doing something—to remedy harm or prevent irreparable injury. This power traces back to English chancery courts and was inherited by the American judicial system.
- Scope of Relief: When a district judge finds that a law, regulation, or executive action violates the Constitution or federal law, they can tailor the remedy to fit the scope of the harm. If the harm extends beyond the plaintiff in the case to a broader population—say, a federal policy affecting people nationwide—the judge may conclude that a nationwide injunction is necessary to provide "complete relief." This isn’t explicitly written in a statute but flows from the court’s discretion to craft equitable remedies.
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Many nationwide injunctions arise in cases challenging federal agency actions under the APA. The APA allows courts to "set aside" agency actions that are unlawful or arbitrary. While it doesn’t explicitly authorize nationwide relief, courts have interpreted this power broadly. For example, if a regulation is deemed invalid, a judge might vacate it entirely—not just for the plaintiff—effectively halting its enforcement everywhere.
- Precedent and Practice: The use of nationwide injunctions has grown over time, though it’s not new. Historical examples include injunctions against federal policies during the New Deal era. Modern cases, like those blocking immigration policies (e.g., Trump’s travel ban in 2017 or Biden’s vaccine mandates), show how judges use this tool when they see a policy as uniformly illegal or unconstitutional. Critics argue this stretches judicial power, but supporters say it’s a logical extension of a court’s role to check executive overreach.
- Limits and Controversy: There’s no formal limit stopping a district judge from issuing a nationwide injunction, though higher courts—like the Supreme Court or circuit courts—can stay or overturn them. The Supreme Court has expressed skepticism about their overuse, notably in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where Justice Thomas criticized them as historically rare and potentially abusive. Still, no binding rule prohibits them, so judges retain discretion unless Congress or the Supreme Court steps in.
Then the next question should be - shouldn't the scope of their authority be limited to cases specifically inside their jurisdiction? A district judge shouldn't be able to rule on a case that's not in his region?
And if it's national - he has no authority whatsoever?
And if it's national - he has no authority whatsoever?
I guess district judges do, because it appears that the Chief Justice is going to let the process play out.
That's the thing about SCOTUS - they seem to want to intervene as little as possible.
At least the Chief Justice does. The four originalists would like to nip this in the bud now.
Some cases have been limited to region .. I don't remember the case back during Trump 45 ... a conservative court ruled ONE way for its area and a democrat rule the other way for his ' district '
Both were enforcement until SCOTUS took up the case later
If these gang members were in Denver, why didn't a district judge there get involved .?