New bill threatens to cripple 'judicial tyranny' from derailing Trump's agenda at every turn

F

FastLane

Verified User

New bill threatens to cripple 'judicial tyranny' from derailing Trump's agenda at every turn​


GOP Rep. Darrell Issa has introduced a bill aimed at preventing federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions with the sole purpose of derailing a president’s political agenda, which Issa says has been the case since President Donald Trump was sworn in.


The legislation, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), amends Chapter 85 of title 28, United 5 States Code by adding a "Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief."

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court," the legislation states.

Dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials, local jurisdictions and individuals have launched more than 50 lawsuits against the Trump administration since Jan. 20 in response to his more than 60 executive orders, as well as executive proclamations and memos, Fox News Digital reported earlier this month.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ne...erm-through-onslaught-lawsuits-taking-aim-eos

Issa says NORRA would limit the scope of nationwide injunctions by preventing federal judges from issuing injunctions that extend beyond parties directly involved in a case, while also ensuring that any injunction restricts only the specific parties requesting relief, regardless of whether the injunction involves outright enforcement of actions or policy actions.

"The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people," Issa told Fox News Digital, adding that the current judge-shopping climate in the United States amounts to "judicial tyranny" and a "weaponization of courts."

Issa's office told Fox News Digital they are optimistic that this is a bill that will pass through Congress with Republican support and be signed by President Trump, adding that the bill has "maximum momentum."...

========================================
Judicial political activism is about to get all Federal judges wings clipped. We can't have 1700 Article III judges running the Presidency. The President is elected by the people Federal judges are elected by no one.
 
Last edited:
zymurgy said:
do you pray to this deity as well? they must be free of error for you to taker the position you are taking
Click to expand...

Sounds like projection.

The courts are an important check on the executive branch. The founders didn't want any branch to have too much power, or the executive branch to have the kind of power they were rebelling against - a genius system of checks & balances.
 
Adolf Hitler did not have judges "impeached" in the traditional sense, as impeachment is a formal process typically associated with democratic systems to remove officials for misconduct. However, once Hitler and the Nazi Party consolidated power in Germany after 1933, they effectively dismantled the independence of the judiciary and brought it under Nazi control.

When Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933, Germany's judicial system was initially intact, rooted in the Weimar Constitution. However, the Nazis quickly moved to eliminate any opposition, including within the courts. Following the Reichstag Fire in February 1933, the Enabling Act (passed on March 23, 1933) allowed Hitler’s government to enact laws without parliamentary approval, effectively giving him dictatorial powers. This included the ability to reshape the judiciary.

Rather than impeaching judges, the Nazis employed a combination of purges, forced retirements, and intimidation to remove judges who were not aligned with Nazi ideology. The Civil Service Law of April 7, 1933 (the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service") enabled the dismissal of "non-Aryan" judges (primarily Jews) and those deemed politically unreliable. By 1934, with the Night of the Long Knives and the death of President Hindenburg, Hitler’s control was absolute, and the judiciary was fully subordinated to the regime.

The Nazis also established parallel courts, such as the infamous People’s Court (Volksgerichtshof) in 1934, staffed by loyal Nazi judges like Roland Freisler, to handle political cases. Regular courts were pressured to conform through the appointment of Nazi loyalists and the threat of violence or imprisonment for dissenters. By the late 1930s, the German judiciary was no longer an independent branch but an instrument of Nazi policy, enforcing laws like the Nuremberg Race Laws and rubber-stamping atrocities.

So, to answer your question: Hitler didn’t "impeach" judges in a legal sense. He either removed them through purges or coerced the judicial system into submission, ensuring it served the Nazi agenda.
 
BartenderElite said:
Sounds like projection.

The courts are an important check on the executive branch. The founders didn't want any branch to have too much power, or the executive branch to have the kind of power they were rebelling against - a genius system of checks & balances.
Click to expand...
and the people are an important check on the judicial branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top