A "nationwide injunctions" are a polite way of going "court shopping"!

Language has successfully use to influence those who cannot
or refuse to go deeper to understand.

I  came across the term  "nationwide injunctions" which may
be familiar in the legal community but doubt anywhere else.

I recently visited the Supreme Court for the second time, only
this time I took advantage of the 30 minute presentation offered
within the court by a tour guide.

As I listened thoughts ran through my mind about the Court,
'problems' I see and what can be done to rectify.

In the introduction, I paused when the guide spoke of the  'three
co-equal branches of our government'. To me, there is a "flaw",
the Judicial branch is the only one that is not 'pro active' towards
both the Executive and Legislative branches that are when they
have the authority to appoint and confirm Federal jurists.

Nor, does the Court involve itself in what is commonly known
as "court shopping", the practice seeking an injunction against
a lower court ruling in an appellate court that would be more
'receptive' to legal challenges.

But, observing the behavior within the legal system today, when
I see methods used to pursue legal remedies that often undermine
the process in my view, I wonder why the Supreme Court does
not take measures to stop this abuse of justice system.

I asked the guide this question and he said it doe not.

I am speaking of the the federal court system, the three levels,
Supreme Court, thirteen Appellate Courts and ninety-four
District Courts.

Despite the three level of federal courts being within the same
branch, the Supreme Court does not protect the "purity of the
legal process" in the lower two levels, either due to not having
the power to address abuses with the federal court system or
refuses to get involved with what occurs in the lower levels.

The problem is what I call "court shopping" which is already
defined as "nationwide injunctions", which is the exercise of
seeking more 'receptive' courts to legal challenges that comes
when a particular court is sought no matter where the initial
judgement is made.

"Court shopping" may be legal, but is it warranted?  It is common
for a lawyer to challenge a particular jurist, but the lawyer does not
decide, the court decides the legitimacy of the request. So too should
be true of which court should equivocate, the lawyer does not decide.

Yet, this is what occurs even though the lower two courts were created
to serve unique regional areas of our country.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/nationwide-injunctions-and-lower-federal-courts





Feedback appreciated. Feel free to enter in comments section below, or email, ajbruno14@gmail.com "Point of View" blog http://ajbruno14.blogspot.com/