How many times have we seen a partisan activist judge issue a sweeping injunction that prevents the implementation of existing federal law or executive orders?
[OCS: Since when do cities and states have an option to ignore constitutional federal laws that were duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States because they want to pander to those who are most likely to vote in favor of the incumbent local party in power. Not to mention, continuing the mostly-unionized industry that deals with criminals, poverty-stricken individuals, and the minorities which are growing in political power on a daily basis.]
[OCS: You may have noticed that the progressive partisans had no problem with the Department of Education withholding funds from those jurisdictions that refuse to accept and implement the “common core” curricula.]
[OCS: It is commonsense that local and state entities do not have the constitutional authority to act as moral arbiters or thwart the law of the land to accrete political advantage.]
[OCS: Even when officers know that someone has been previously deported, especially someone in the gang community, it is detrimental to law-abiding citizens that such individuals are free to roam the streets until they get caught perpetrating a serious crime – and even then the authorities may refuse to turn the individual over to ICE for deportation. Unbelievable, but then again, we are speaking of progressive socialist democrats who run on “law and order” but thwart it at every turn.]
Now, a member of Congress appears to be taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously. Restricting the power of activist judges to thwart federal statutes and obstruct the President from exercising their plenary powers.
With the introduction of the Injunction Authority Clarification Act of 2018, House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte has taken a step to reign-in rogue judges who are hell-bent on thwarting President Trump’s agenda using wide-sweeping injunctions which delay or destroy the Executive Branch’s plenary powers and the enforcement of federal laws. Thus, an injunction issued by a federal judge would be binding only on the parties before the court and may not be extended to a broader group of non-parties.
|SEC. 2. ORDERS PURPORTING TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST NON-PARTIES.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 155 of title 28, United 4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“§ 2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties “No court of the United States (and no district court of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands) shall issue an order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
In this particular instance, the injunction would only apply to Los Angeles and not the Circuit Court’s wider jurisdiction or the United States and its territories as a whole.
If the progressive socialist democrats have not noticed, maybe someone should point out that the Constitution gives courts the authority to decide cases on behalf of the parties before the bench and does not grant judges the right to become super-legislators or Supreme Court Justices to impose their will on an entire nation based on a single case. The idea that partisans can venue and judge shop to win a single case – and lose similar cases in other jurisdictions – and then have that ruling become the operative law of the land is ludicrous.
One need only look at the most reversed circuit court in the land, the uber-liberal Ninth Circuit which as aptly been named the Ninth Circus Court.
We are so screwed. But, this legislation might be a step in the right direction to return fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius