Difference between revisions of "Talk:Donald Trump achievements: The courts"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Questionable SCOTUS decisions)
(Other 2018 cases to watch)
Line 40: Line 40:
  
 
These two actions by the DOJ on challenging ObamaCare and DACA, are interesting, and we should watch to see what comes out of these cases: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-and-jeff-sessions-create-amazing-and-unusual-week-at-the-justice-department] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)
 
These two actions by the DOJ on challenging ObamaCare and DACA, are interesting, and we should watch to see what comes out of these cases: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-and-jeff-sessions-create-amazing-and-unusual-week-at-the-justice-department] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)
 +
:We should also watch whether the Supreme Court will take up a religious liberty case regarding a Christian florist, a case that will be even more important than the "cake" one that was just decided: [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-could-follow-bake-the-cake-with-arrange-the-flowers-ruling-this-week] --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (EDT)
  
 
== Interesting articles ==
 
== Interesting articles ==

Revision as of 21:45, 17 June 2018

DC "good reason" law struck down

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Washington, D.C. law requiring people seeking a concealed carry permit to give a "good reason" in order to receive a permit.[1] We'll see if this goes to the Supreme Court. If so, it will be a repeat of Peruta v. California, which the Court refused to hear. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2017 (EDT)

The Court of Appeals rejected a request to have an en banc hearing of this case, meaning that the prior ruling will stay in place.[2] --1990'sguy (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2017 (EDT)
The case could go to the Supreme Court: [3][4] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2017 (EDT)

Prayer in the U.S. House

The Federal District Court in D.C. ruled in favor of Christian prayer in the House of Representatives, blocking an atheist activist from leading the opening session of the House.[5] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Travel ban case

The Ninth Circuit Court partially reinstated Trump's third travel ban.[6][7][8][9] Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of it. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2017 (EST)

Good judicial appointments to follow

LifeSiteNews has singled out Howard C. Nielson, Jr. as a very good, socially-conservative judicial nominee appointed by the Trump Administration. Hopefully, his nomination is confirmed by the Senate.[10] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2018 (EST)

There are many good Trump judicial nominees, but I noticed that Patrick Wyrick was singled out for being very conservative, so that's one to follow: [11] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (EDT)
I will also try to follow Michael J. Truncale, since he seems to take a strong position against voter fraud, having experienced it himself: [12] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2018 (EDT)

Bad judicial appointments

Apparently, one of Trump's nominees for the 9th Circuit Court, Mark Jeremy Bennett, holds left-wing positions on a number of issues -- hopefully, this nomination will fail: [13] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2018 (EDT)

SCOTUS lets Mississippi religious freedom law stand

The court chose not to hear a case over a Mississippi law protecting the religious liberty of Christians, effectively letting it stand: [14][15][16][17] I probably won't add this because the court is reviewing a very similar case right now about a Colorado Christian baker, and the outcome of that case might determine this law. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2018 (EST)

Scaling back the administrative state

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear two cases, one on the 5th Amendment and another on the Nondelegation Doctrine, that, if decided correctly, will reduce the power of the modern administrative state: [18] We should watch these cases. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2018 (EST)

Other 2018 cases to watch

There will be several interesting 2018 SCOTUS cases, such as gerrymandering and religious liberty. It will also hear a case on detaining criminal illegals[19] as well as free speech for pro-life pregnancy clinics.[20] --1990'sguy (talk) 11:09, 19 March 2018 (EDT)

The SCOTUS rejected a case that could have weakened the administrative state: [21] Oh well. --1990'sguy (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
The SCOTUS also rejected a case that instituted a gag order on undercover videos showing the truth of the abortion industry: [22] --1990'sguy (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2018 (EDT)
The Supreme Court's pace is unusually slow right now, and it's difficult making a decision: [23] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2018 (EDT)
The case on SEC judges is interesting: [24] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (EDT)
Interesting article on the upcoming SCOTUS decisions in the coming month: [25] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2018 (EDT)
Another good article: [26] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2018 (EDT)

These two actions by the DOJ on challenging ObamaCare and DACA, are interesting, and we should watch to see what comes out of these cases: [27] --1990'sguy (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

We should also watch whether the Supreme Court will take up a religious liberty case regarding a Christian florist, a case that will be even more important than the "cake" one that was just decided: [28] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2018 (EDT)

Interesting articles

I think this Reuters article paints the federal courts as being more pro-Trump than they actually are, but it is still interesting to read: [29] --1990'sguy (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Questionable SCOTUS decisions

By "questionable", I mean cases that I'm not sure count as a clear judicial achievement. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down a law effectively banning online video gambling seems to be one of them: [30][31][32][33] I like the fact that it appears to give more power to the states, and the case seems to be related to the 10th Amendment, but the case doesn't appear to have been decided on clear 10th Amendment grounds (the court said that the government can still ban video gaming if it wants) and it might pave the way for other court decisions such as on immigration. Also, the decision ruling against police searching of rental cars similar: [34] Of course, neither of these decisions necessarily has to be added to this article, though the first one seems to be a landmark case. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (EDT)

This decision limiting police searches seems like a good decision (based on the little I know of 4th Amendment constitutional law), though it might be too insignificant to add either way: [35] --1990'sguy (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2018 (EDT)
The Supreme Court sent a case, involving a proposed penalty for two Chinese company, back to the lower courts because the lower courts were too deferential to the Chinese government's arguments: [36][37][38][39] This is good news, though I'm not sure if it is significant enough to add to the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2018 (EDT)