Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.
I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?
In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).
Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.
My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
Only valid in their district. The judge doesn't have any power outside that district to rule like that, and higher courts and other district courts may not take kindly to it.
It's the beginning of the end. Since when has a single federal judge had WORLD power to order such an abrupt change in more than 200 years of Military service and order?! Next up, worldwide gay marriage. This is the beginning of the end of times. Repent!!
While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.
I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?
In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).
Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.
My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
The losing party here is the US Department of Justice. If they did not appeal, wouldn't this ruling stand?
For a different Federal judge to issue an injunction against the injunction, wouldn't he or she have to have a case presented to their court? Who would file such a case?
US Constitution: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
I read that to say an inferior court has judidicial power of the United States. Of course, the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter, but the case would have to go there first. Again, if DoJ doesn't appeal, isn't it a done deal? (I realize that's a big if).
The Constitution provides the federal courts the power to hear cases involving the Constitution as a law, laws enacted by Congress, treaties, and laws relating to navigable waters (the sea, the Great Lakes, and most rivers) and commerce on them. The federal courts' jurisdiction also encompasses the many cases that involve or affect commerce among states.
Since a main argument against DADT was a Constitutional one - freedom of speech - it was within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals, or a District Court.
A person involved in a suit in a U.S. court may proceed through three levels of decision. Generally, the case will be heard and decided by one of the district courts on the first level. If a party is dissatisfied with the decision rendered, the party may have the decision reviewed in one of the courts of appeals. If dissatisfied with the decision of a court of appeals, the party may seek additional review in the Supreme Court of the United States; however, the Supreme Court primarily reviews only cases that involve a matter of great national importance and only accepts a small number of cases each term.
Some news agencies are reporting that the Administration is considering an appeal. If they do so, it will be up to a Court of Appeals, and potentially the Supreme Court after that.
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the U.S. military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
While I applaud the ruling also I must admit I had not realized that a Federal District Judge had such power outside of his or her own district.
I mean, what is now to stop another Federal District Judge, say in Idaho, from issuing his or her own injunction against this injunction?
In short, a Federal District judge is the tryer of fact (hears cases, reviews evidence, etc) and renders a judgement (may or may not be published). If the losing party disagrees, they appeal to the United States Courts of Appeal for their circuit (eleven circuits, plus DC).
Now, often the US Supreme Court gets involves when two different Courts of Appeal issue different rulings on the same subject matter.
My point: a lowly Federal District Judge cannot actually issue mandates or injunctions that affect the United States at large.
As per the link, it seems that a worldwide injunction was part of the original request:
"The Log Cabin Republicans asked her for an immediate injunction so the policy can no longer be used against any U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world.
"The order represents a complete and total victory for the Log Cabin Republicans and reaffirms the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians in the miltiary for fighting and dying for our country," said Dan Woods, an attorney for the Log Cabin group.""
Apparently what they asked for was this:
"We want her to block any further enforcement or application of don't ask, don't tell wherever we have military operations — not just in California, not just in this country but wherever we have military bases anywhere in the world," he said."
As to the limits on her jurisdiction, from the same link:
"Government lawyers argued before Judge Phillips, however, that she lacks authority beyond California.
Dan Woods, the lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans, recalled her reaction: "She looked at government counsel and said, 'You cannot be serious,' or words to that effect.""
I'm not opposed to gays in the military, but this judicial activism nonsense needs to end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
