Temporary Injunctions?

[DDT951]

Can someone please help me to understand how exactly the Federal Court system works?

I read this.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media...ing/index.html
CNN and Acosta filed suit on Tuesday. The case was assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee.
On Wednesday afternoon Kelly heard arguments over the proposed temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction from Theodore Boutrous, an attorney representing CNN, and Justice Department attorney James Burnham

The I read this.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/media...ned/index.html
Either way, this is just round one. By filing for a temporary restraining order, CNN is seeking what's known as "emergency relief." CNN is arguing that Acosta's First Amendment rights are being violated every day he is banned from White House grounds.



This is where it gets confusing. Why does a reporter get an emergency hearing with days because everyday he claims his rights are violated. He is asking for temporary restraining order preventing the government (President Trump) from doing something until the course case is settled because he claims his rights are being violated every day. In another court case, John Caldera has asked for temporary restraining orders, for the citizens of Boulder because their rights are being violated every day the law is in effect.


So my question is why does a reporter get an emergency hearing and the citizens of a somewhat large city having their rights violated do not get emergency hearing and TROs? Can someone explain how this who court system works and why liberal causes (2013 mag ban) allow the laws to go in effect that could affect someone's rights but anything that is a conservative cause (think Amendment 92, booting a disrespectful and possibly dangerous person from the presidents home) seem to get immediate TROs and the laws can't be put in effect until all challenges have been settled?

What am I not understanding?

[Bailey Guns]

What am I not understanding?

I'd like an answer to this as well. Unfortunately, I don't understand anything about how the world seems to operate these days. Day is night, night is day, wrong is right...it never ends. I'm trying to learn to live with it and ignore it.

[Jamnanc]

Audiobooks work fir me.

[DDT951]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...nns-jim-acosta

"I will grant the application for the temporary restraining order I order the [government] reinstate the pass," U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly ruled from Washington.

[Rumline]

So my question is why does a reporter get an emergency hearing and the citizens of a somewhat large city having their rights violated do not get emergency hearing and TROs?

Easy. One is a member of the anointed class, the others are hoi polloi.

[Martinjmpr]

We don't have an American justice system. We still have the kings court from the late middle ages. There is almost no difference.

Sure there's a difference. A judge, by himself, has zero enforcement authority outside the four walls of his courtroom.

Generally speaking, the executive and legislative branches tend to be deferential to the courts because they fear anarchy if they don't.

Judges get deferred to because they are generally seen as fair-minded, impartial and without a specific axe to grind. But as judges get more "activist" that image of impartiality diminishes (and the sad thing is, it only takes a few judges to diminish the credibility of ALL judges.)

But as we've seen over and over with Trump, the "old rules" don't seem to apply.

I've often wondered what would happen if, say, in a case like this, Trump simply said "no." What are Acosta and CNN going to do then? Run back to the same judge? And suppose the judge "orders" the press secretary or some other individual to come into court and explain why they aren't following his injunction, but that official says "no", what then?

The federal court has no "police force" they can send. Their power rests solely in their reputation and in the hope that the executive branch won't risk opening Pandora's Box by simply telling the Court to go pound sand.

I'm envisioning that scene in the movie "Tombstone", right after the shootout at the OK corral, when Sheriff Behan approaches the victorious Earp group and says "You're all under arrest" and Wyatt just says "No, Behan, I don't think I'm going to let you arrest me today."

EDITED TO ADD: There is some precedence here: Worcester v. Georgia 31, U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). SCOTUS ruled that a Georgia law prohibiting whites from being on Indian territory was unconstitutional because the authority to deal with Indian tribes was vested in the Federal government, not the States. But the law stayed on the books and the petitioner Worcester stayed in prison.

President Andrew Jackson, who disagreed with the ruling, is reported to have said "Justice Marshall has rendered his opinion. Now let him enforce it!"

[Martinjmpr]

OK, just read this:

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “In response to the court, we will temporarily reinstate the reporter’s hard pass. We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future. There must be decorum at the White House.”

So Pandora's box remains closed -for now. But with this president, one can imagine future challenges.

Here's one: Suppose the Dem - controlled House, when they go into session in January, goes Full Retard and starts an investigation. They subpoena various officials to testify, let's say former AG Sessions.

Sessions tears up the subpoena and tells the House to get stuffed. What then?

Like the courts, the House of Representatives has no "police force" they can send. They can ASK for US Marshalls to enforce the subpoena but the Marshalls work for .... the Executive Branch! So unless Trump or the new AG orders the Marshalls to enforce the subpoena, there's nothing the House can do except yell and cry and stamp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue in the face.

So a Constitutional stalemate occurs.

[DireWolf]

...far more recently than 1832, a judge ordered his bailiff to go to the house of someone who failed to appear and beat the shit out of him. The bailiff complied...

A lot of this is based on tolerance, lethargy, and/or variations how people respond when pushed up against the wall...

***The following is not an endorsement or recommendation, merely a hypothetical senario-based question***
In the scenario you listed above, what's the likelihood (especially in today's climate) that when the bailiff showed up with ill-intent and began his 'attempted' beat down, that the individual - rather than meekly taking the beating like a good little serf - had instead decided to remove said bailiff from the gene pool on the spot. Then, because 'in for a penny, in for a pound', had decided to expediently send the judge in question to give his former bailiff some company...One could even make a case for self-defense in the first instance, followed by a resultant temporary mental breakdown leading to the second.

Many people might be predisposed to go gentle into that good night...Others (particularly some who are generally righteous and hold no ill-will towards their fellow man), may be hardwired to rage.

Another way of putting this is that the concept of "Kiri-sute gomen", or anything even related as a modern equivalent, is not something which some would find tolerable...


Hopefully we never get to that point, because that's one Pandora's box which anyone in their right mind should be terrified of seeing opened, regardless of legal immunity or lack thereof.

[Martinjmpr]

They also certainly could issue bench warrants and everything else that would break a LEO career, by mere fact of record. The reality of our system doesn't = the theory of it.

And literally- when the judge goes rogue and ignores separation of power and/or rights, and/or jurisdiction, due process, subject matter jurisdiction, how do you check it? There's theory, but in reality, there is little, to in most cases, no recourse of any kind. Zip. There is no realistic check on judicial power of any kind. Ask me how I know sometime.

Yes, I get it, this is your hobby horse, but in the example above I'm not talking about a circumstance where the 3rd district judge issues an order and then Deputy Sheriff Joe Snuffy is sent out to enforce it.

Let's look at the situation we are actually talking about: The district court judge issued an injunction against the white house. What if the white house ignored it? Is the district court judge going to send his bailiff to arrest Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Not likely.

In this case, the white house seems to have acquiesced to the order so it's a moot issue.

[Skip]

Because Acosta's rights are clearly superior!!!

Boulder gun owners are dirty/bad people who don't belong.

Same reason Obama can legitimize DACA by Executive fiat but a JudgeInHawaii rules that Trump lacks the authority as Executive to rescind the same.

One thing is good, the other is bad. Goodness/badness overrides written law.

---

In all seriousness, we are living in post-legal, post-Constitutional society* that continues to exist because the governed continue to give their consent to lawless government.

OP's Boulder example is perfect. That ordinance stands in clear contradiction of Federal and CO Constitution and criminalizes people who have committed no crime.

Everyone went to work the following Monday. Everyone continued to pay their taxes.


* It's not a country without borders.