8 Comments
User's avatar
MizVirtue's avatar

I hear this, but doesn't the big bill of death have a bond posting requirement before going to court against the govt? Won't that be a catch 22?

Expand full comment
Zoe Jane Halo's avatar

That’s the problem with creating legal “weapons”. Always gotta worry how the other side is gonna put it to work for themselves.

Expand full comment
Brie McReynolds's avatar

So very true… and unfortunately, so many of our government officials just want to keep their jobs.

Expand full comment
George Shay's avatar

Key Rule of Thumb:

District courts don’t make national law. Circuit courts shape regional law. Only the Supreme Court creates binding national precedent.

That's the way it always was. In the case you cite, the Democrats should have challenged the nationwide injunction. But the law was the same, then and now, as the Supreme Court has clarified.

Expand full comment
Brie McReynolds's avatar

The Dems didn’t challenge national injunctions because even though it pissed them off, they weren’t comfortable with what the Republicans could do with the same power. Republicans decided to finally define its legal limits, and that’s fine, truly (there are fair arguments against nationwide injunctions, I’m iffy on them myself), so long as they remember that a liberal or leftist or Dem or whatever exists in the future… they’ll have the same power.

Expand full comment
George Shay's avatar

That’s always been the situation. The districts overreached. SCOTUS simply clarified that.

Expand full comment
Brie McReynolds's avatar

Correct. And the clarification results in the law being applied differently in future. If Republicans are okay with all Presidents having that power, even Democrats, so be it.

Expand full comment
George Shay's avatar

So be it indeed. The law is the law.

Expand full comment