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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.