comment: >
  
  An injunction isn’t easy to get, there has to be rock solid evidence that the law isn’t constitutional. Did everyone forget that all law in the United States is graded by the constitution on its legality.
context: Ah, the weekly It's Time For Democrats To Get Serious headline. >
  
  If a Judge in say the Fifth Circuit rules against something, perhaps it should only be lawful in that Circuit. Just think how pissed off student loan borrowers would be that they would have to pay off thier loans, but the borrowers in the Ninth Circuit did not have to pay off the loans. >
  
  Gosh I wish it worked that way. The 5th circuit activists can go shove it >
  
  Trump broke the law. It is now time to prosecute him. >
  
  Injunction junction, what's your function? >
  
  Blocking up bills and Biden’s agenda >
  
  The mashup I’ve been waiting 45 years for. God bless us, every one. >
  
  I dunno... I remember just a short time ago when these same sorts of injunctions were preventing Trump from ruling by executive order. If you want to block nationwide injunctions, it might feel good in the short term, but there is going to be a time in the near future where you probably want to have that back. >
  
  Trump would require a ham fisted blanket block, biden would do well with a nuanced change in how these cases are ruled on. >
  
  The judges don't have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The Government needs to stop allowing it, and arrest Judges that attempt it for Insurrection, as it is a Judicial Coup. >
  
  
  The judges don't have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
  
  Do you have a source for this? >
  
  There are 13 Federal Circuits that Only Have Authority in their own Jurisdictions. Only SCOTUS can issue Nationwide Injunctions. If the corrupt 5th Circuit had Nationwide Authority, Abortions and Birth Control and many other things would be banned across the country. >
  
  Jurisdiction applies to their ability to hear certain cases and make precedent from them and only their jurisdiction. However, that does not mean they lack the authority to set nationwide injunctions. 
  
  Only SCOTUS can issue Nationwide Injunctions
  
  Again, please share a source that demonstrates this. Because courts have been issuing nationwide injunctions for quite a while now which hasn't been stopped by the Supreme Court. >
  
  Why would the court work to reduce its power? The ENTIRE GOP strategy for a quarter century has been to subvert democracy through court appointments because the judiciary has no functioning checks on its power. >
  
  This sounds righteous now but during Trump’s term the left wasn’t complaining about nationwide injunctions. >
  
  Did you read the article? He's not proposing getting rid of them altogether, just restricting which courts can issue them. 
  That way ait prevents a
   single activist judge in TX or FL from dealing the executive agenda nationwide injunctions based on dubious legal standing >
  
  
  Nationwide injunctions are not per se a bad thing; we saw their appropriate use during the racist, xenophobic presidency of Trump
  
  There’s your problem. Injunctions are fine when they work for you, bad when they work against you. Republicans complain about “activist judges” when it’s convenient too. >
  
  That's not my problem. I can acknowledge that there are times where a nationwide injunctions is the correct move but the current arrangement rewards "forum shopping" to find a sympathetic judge instead of a more regularized operation. It could have just as easily have been activist judges on the left that are being shipped for, but the current administration is democratic >
  
  They’re someone who frequents askaliberal, conspiracy, and centrist subs. They don’t care about coherent arguments >
  
  How is it not coherent? >
  
  Please explain coherently why some wackadoo in Beaumont should be allowed to dictate national policy on his own? Why should one man have the authority to overrule Congress, the President, etc? Doesn’t that seem a little authoritarian to you? >
  
  At no point did they support nation wide injunctions. They merely pointed out the hypocrisy in the article. >
  
  Sounds like a threat to democracy >
  
  I was confused as to the nature of the title doing the ‘muh party ending democracy!’ Claims then I saw the fact it’s HuffPost and stopped being confused >
  
  Not long ago nationwide injunctions were celebrated when they were put in place by Hawaiian judges. Some people said "Be careful what you wish for", bit that was ignored by this sub. >
  
  I'm confused by the article: it's advocating for a piece of legislation that... Is passing? Is unlikely to pass? >
  
  It will never happen. >
  
  I will never understand how a state judge can make a decision that affects 30 plus million people most not living in the same state >
  
  All judges do this, no matter who appoints them.  9th circuit court of appeals in San Francisco is notorious for randomly issuing nationwide injunctions. >
  
  The other side does the same thing, but you know that.