>

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