>

Turn about is fair play?  Republicans are always slow to adopt new tactics created by Dems. 
Force the Supreme court to be in session more of the year and raise more cases to the SCOTUS would probably be the ultra long term fix.
It’s a problem.  Anyone who wants to block a new policy can bring any number of suits to any number of judges — you only have to find one judge who agrees with you.  There’s no sport in the world in which 1-30 constitutes a winning season. >

Would an example of this be the student loan forgiveness Biden signed which was ultimately blocked by a single federal judge? >

Yes, absolutely. >

Not sure how it could be implemented, but maybe you just shouldn't be able to choose where to file a complaint if it's not solely affecting that jurisdiction? Like, if the complaint is concerning a national matter, it should be arbitrarily assigned to a random federal court. >

There's actually things like the US Federal Circuit, which is a specialized circuit that only hears appeals on certain cases regarding the federal government.  It could probably make sense to create an analogous jurisdiction of trial courts that are not "districts", but rather designated courts of first hearing on such matters.
That or you just let whatever district courts have first hearing but remove appellate jurisdiction away from the regional circuits. >

To give an example how this can work. This is the system that exists in Germany. We have here 5 different branches of courts, the "general court" for civil and criminal matters, the labour courts, the governmental courts for all general lawsuits against the government, the financial court for everything taxes, and the social courts for everything social security.
Each of these courts have their own court buildings, their own districts, their own judges, and exist independent next to each other.
Edit: Also, these kind of injunctions, because they come from a state instead of a private citizen, would probably not be handled at these levels, but there would be a call to the constitutional court (our version of supreme court) right away, because it would involve a conflict of state vs. federal rights. >

Yeah exactly - the funny thing is that most countries like Germany, Austria, etc all have a separate "administrative court" that checks the executive;  the US has "administrative law judges" as Article I courts but they are - for arguably ludicrous reasons - considered part of the executive branch; just like the inspector generals, and the classic "we investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing" mentality.
US should make all Article I judges into magistrate-adjacents. >

This seems like something best dealt with through appeals processes and preliminary injunctions of various sorts.  The courts are supposed to rule the same way as each other when presented with the same facts and arguments; of course they do not do so in fact, but that is the ostensible goal.
So variations attributable to judges should be avoided by the relevant appeals courts in each area making sure the judges under it follow standard patterns; and by enjoining the lower courts rulings and injunctions on as necessary basis.  Then of course the Supreme court ensures that each appeals court is following that process.
Ideally we should also have a system for monitoring the extent to which various judges are overturned on appeal in various ways, particularly when their injunctions are overturned.  With perhasp some sort of consequences for judges with persistently erroneous rulings.
Also, Ken Paxton should've been disbarred by now; if it were up to me I'd have denied him access to the federal bench at all. >


something best dealt with through appeals processes

One of the cases brought by Paxton was around Biden's Title 42 repeal. A single-judge district decided the case quickly, blocking Biden from repealing an executive order of the former president. It took the Supreme Court ruling in the summer of 2022 to overturn that Trump judge's initial ruling in early 2021. For over a year, the Biden admin was hand-tied on an immigration policy because of this.
That's more than 25% of the president's term taken from them over a single judge. The appeals process is slow and frankly, the ruling should have never been made in the first place. >

More judges. There are already systems that allow judges to hear cases in different districts, which are pretty much a bandaid on the real problem.
The Senate shouldn't be allowed to sit on nominations, the problem starts where the process starts. There should be a time frame for them to approve, and if they miss it, it would go to that district/circuits current judges to approve. >


but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president

Maybe you weren't aware but this has already happened during Trumps years. The left would go Judge shopping in California, New York and Washington the state. >

Those 3 states don't have single-judge districts, so this didn't happen. You're conflating simply suing in any court with picking a court with 1 judge presiding over it who is a friendly and suing in that particular court. >

I think what they is saying is that even though there are no single judge circuits, there are circuits in those states that are exclusively one ideology (or are very close to one). That is the same in practice as shopping a single judge circuit because your outcome is still guaranteed. >

All I could imagine is having the judge that gets tapped to hear the case be randomly selected from the pool of all judges nationally who adjudicate at that level.
Call it the "Ken Paxton fucked around so now all of you get a travel compensation!" act. >

Venue shopping is a well established legal strategy. It's not just used by politicians. My company's lawyers choose the most advantageous venue when they sue somebody. >


but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.

You can't be that naive; it's used all the time by both sides. >


but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president.   

You mean like the “nutty 9th” circuit was used by Democrats for years?  
I think the real question is why Biden keeps overreaching Executive authority but that’s not a question you seem willing to address based on your question and naivety around how Democrats have been doing this for years already. >

How dare the republicans take advantage of the same law that the democrats have used.  totally shocking, it is only supposed to benefit the democrats, how dare they! >

This intrigued me the most, no mention of the plethora of uses by the democrats during the Trump Presidency, but now all the sudden its a horrible abuse of power >

Please provide an example of a Democratic politician shopping a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a single-judge district where they know who the judge will be and how they expect them to rule on the case.
A lot of people point to the 9th, and that's not an answer. The 9th is a massive district with many districts within it and you have a good chance of drawing Republican appointees. In most of the state districts, there are either a majority of Republican appointees or a rough balance. Some of the California districts are leaning heavier Democratic but still have plenty of R-nominated judges who are randomly assigned to the cases. Then the 9th itself is a 29 judge body with a 16-13 D-R composition. You draw a 3 judge panel and it can easily be 2 R's on that panel.
So please, show me where Democrats did anything like what Paxton is doing. >

LOL...my god.
So to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the "problem" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.
Well there you go.  The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.
Have a nice day >


So to be clear, its ok to take it to a panel of liberal judges that you know will vote your way but the "problem" is taking it to one judge you know will vote your way.

Yes, a panel that is 45% conservative is accurately described as a "panel of liberal judges". If you just ignore basic facts, you can paint whatever narrative you wish.

The problem isn't partisan judges and waste of time lawsuits, its using one judge.

Yes, actually. You described the problem. You have to file a lawsuit in a federal court against the US government. Filing in a district where you may or may not draw a friendly judge is not the same thing as actually picking the exact judge you want to hear your case. I'm glad we came to an agreement. >

I think this is a case to create ethical rules that would lead a judge to be recalled or impeached. 
If a judge shows this kind of pattern, a bipartisan panel would have to review and decisions should be biding. 
Shopping for jurisdiction is not the issue, judge bias is. >

There is no bipartisan committee that could work together in good faith.  Republicans have shown again and again and again that they will do anything to protect their own, regardless of what they have done, as long as it keeps them in power. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >


Democrats against a future Republican president

I sincerely doubt we will ever see  Democrats attempt to use tactics like this against anyone other than their left most flank. >

I am a lawyer who has filed a number of cases in federal court including one against an incumbent administration. If you don't think we'd try to find left leaning judges when it would benefit us... You're just not correct. >

Lol as if Democrats didn’t do the exact same thing under Trump. Judges are political actors and the judicial branch isn’t neutral. Better to combat that mentality first. >

I've made this point to many other comments, and perhaps it just needs to be pinned, but this isn't true.
Democrats didn't shop lawsuits in single-district judges under Trump. I know this, because there are no single-judge districts with only Democratic appointees anywhere in this country. 
The closest comparison you can make is suing in a federal court that has a majority of Democratic appointees. But that's no guarantee that a) you'll get a Democratic appointee and b) that Democratic appointee will share your view on the case. >

This is why the democrats in the senate need to kill the "blue slip".  If federal judges can affect the whole country, why in the world should one senator have veto power? >

Especially when Republicans have already killed it.

In October 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he believed blue slips should not prevent committee action on a nominee.[8] In November 2017, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, announced that the committee would hold hearings for David Stras and Kyle Duncan. Stras' hearing was held up by Senator Al Franken's refusal to return his blue slip, while Duncan's hearing was held up by Senator John Neely Kennedy's indecision on his blue slip. Kennedy, however, consented to Duncan receiving a hearing.
In February 2019, attorney Eric Miller was confirmed to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, despite the fact that neither of his two home-state senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both of Washington) had returned blue slips for him.[11] He was the first federal judicial nominee to be confirmed without support from either of his home-state senators, although other nominees were similarly confirmed to the Courts of Appeals without blue slips later in 2019, including Paul Matey (Third Circuit, New Jersey), Joseph F. Bianco and Michael H. Park (both Second Circuit, New York), and Kenneth K. Lee, Daniel P. Collins, and Daniel Bress (all Ninth Circuit, California). >


Over half of them have been filed in single-judge districts where he knows who the judge will be and files there knowing how they'll rule.

I am baffled that something like that exists in the US. That is basically an invitation for corruption. Maybe the first step would be to create districts where not a single judge is in charge. >

Just think about troublesome he would be with his own version of the 9th circuit. >


This process was made legal in 1988 and has only recently been abused by Republicans in Texas, but could just as easily be used by Democrats against a future Republican president

In the future?  They used it pretty damn often against Trump during his presidency.  Why are we acting like this is a new tactic? >

There are a number of options. The Congress has near absolute power over the judiciary´s scope and composition except that judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated and confirmed by the president and senate in that order (Congress can´t name judges themselves but heads of departments and courts or the president alone or the president with the senate can name the rest), Congress cannot remove a judge except by impeachment and judges cannot be removed except by impeachment and conviction, the definition of treason is fixed by the constitution, federal courts only have jurisdiction over federal issues and it must be a case or controversy, and the Supreme Court must have original jurisdiction over states being parties to litigation and over foreign ministers and ambassadors and must have only appellate jurisdiction on anything else.
And there are a couple of rules saying that juries must try all crimes (unless the defendant asks for it not to be by jury), courts can´t second guess facts tried by a jury, and a crime that was committed in a state must be tried in the state and district in which it happened. 
That´s actually not a long list. 
The US could restrict cases of where people sue over the legality and constitutionality of a decision by an officer high enough on the chain (like a head of a department, the FCC, te president) to a single court, say with 50 judges, and a random panel of seven hears the case of whom the regulation or order is only void if five of the seven agree. A majority of the judges on the court may take an appeal but only if two thirds of them agree is the order declared void. Appeals to the Supreme Court are not permitted. Something similar can be provided for regular laws too and whether they are constitutional.
Ordinary cases in the US based on forum shopping for more mundane things too could be ended by not having courts based on geography but subject matter jurisdiction alone. The US already constrains patent cases not based on geography but on the fact that it is a patent case. The US could have several courts for administrative rulings (IE decisions by federal bureaucrats), one for civil law, one for federal labour law cases, one for federal misdemeanors, one for federal drug cases, one for federal felonies, and so on. The judges are all equal to each other and equally able to hear a case. You could hear appeals either by a dedicated court of appeal for labour cases for instance or you could take a random panel of judges from the same court to hear the appeal. Appeals to the Supreme Court could be prohibited or conditional.
The vast majority of court cases, especially at a federal level, are remarkably boring, and problems tend to have boring solutions. >

That what Trump was doing when he got the federal judge who lived across Florida to rule on his document case in Mar El Lago.  The judge damaged her reputation by her rulings. >

Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. >

Bad judges should face repercussions but nothing in the judicial system is just. >

What is a bad judge?  If they have sound legal reasoning (like the SCUTOS overturning Roe v Wade) are they bad judges because they didn't come to a desired outcome?
Pretty hard to call them bad judges if their legal reasoning is sound, do you have any evidence that they aren't making good legal rulings? >

If you have 26 judges ruling one way and 1 judge ruling the other it seems obvious. 
Roe has sound reasoning and decades of legal precedent. I guess in your hot take all the other judges that ruled for it were bad judges. The right to medical privacy. Who wouldn’t deserve that?  It’s a unilateral decision without sound judgement based on preference and not reasoning. There are not fifty shades of gray as you want but right and wrong. It is not complicated to then see who does and does not have sound judgement. I mean for a morally forthright person.  Being morally ambiguous such as yourself I can see how understanding who is and is not making reasoned judgements could be complicated for you. >

Roe did not have sound reasoning.  It was mocked in law schools, it was a HUGE talking point amongst legal scholars of always being in jeopardy because it was such a weak ruling.
"All the other judges"...what other judges, only the SCOTUS ruled for it.  Othe judges were required to use it as precedent, even if they completely disagreed with the ruling, that is how SCOTUS decisions work.
It didn't have a sound argument, you won't be able to make a sound argument to support it. Screaming precedent means nothing as the SCOTUS has overturned itself 236 times.  2% of their decisions are overturned.  So lets not pretend like its some crazy thing that never happens.
The constitution cannot remove, nor protect the right to an abortion because in no way is the constitution able to determine what rights a fetus has.  When the constitution cannot be used to determine a law, it is punted to the states to determine it themselves.
Every SCOTUS hearing this question came up because everyone knew the law could be overturned at any moment because it was bad law.
If you wish to say a judge is wrong, you need to make a solid legal argument.  Those that claimed the Roe decision was bad made solid legal arguments for decades as to why it was bad law.  Those complaining it was overturned aren't making legal arguments.  They are screaming precedent, and saying "but they said they wouldn't overturn it in their hearings" (which they didn't actually say)