Schumer venue reform vs McConnell venue reform (after due consideration, lets do BOTH)

Politics
1

Senators Schumer and McConnell have submitted competing venue reform bills.

I have examined both and after due consideration, I think we should merge them and pass ALL of what BOTH propose.

The McConnell proposal:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-170/issue-61/senate-section/article/S2708-2

McConnell’s proposal bans nationwide injunctions by District Courts and reforms bankruptcy and patent venue. It does not reform venue for cases seeking to enjoin Federal statutes, regulations or Executive Orders.

I don’t have a link for the Schumer proposal, but I do know that it is limited to the issue of single judge divisions and would require that lawsuits attempting to enjoin Federal statutes, regulations or Executive Orders be randomly assigned to any Judge in the District.

No need or desire to choose between them. Just shoe horn Schumer’s proposal INTO McConnell’s proposal and pass ALL of it.

I have already contacted both Senators and several other Senators to this effect.

The proposals fit together perfectly, let’s combine them and do this.

1 Like
2

Restrict the impact of all the rulings of any inferior court to the circuit they exist in, making the Supreme court the only court with national jurisdiction… Elimination of venue shopping by assigning cases at random.

5 Likes
3

How would that not violate the full faith and credit clause?

1 Like
4

How about punishing lawyers for frivolous lawsuits?

2 Likes
5

Do you even know what the faith and credit clause is intended for?

7

Costs and sanctions are a thing.

8

I am interested in a discussion of why it would not.

It may very well not.

If you’d like to answer my question i am all ears welll eyes

1 Like
9

Good start.

10

A thing never used.

1 Like
11

Never is harsh. Sanctions almost never. Costs all the time.

But yes the system protects its own under the guise of ethics.

12

:roll_eyes:

Well, look at you. Once again you fail to answer a legitimate question.

13

If its history is important feel free to share. Otherwise feel free to resort to gifs and then that’s enough attention for you today.

14

Nope. We had a brief discussion about this yesterday. How often with gov?

Agreed.

15

I see you continue to avoid answering a legitimate question.

:roll_eyes:

1 Like
16

With gov? Never ever ever. I was talking about private entities.

17

Come on man! @FreeAndClear even asked his question first. Did you answer?

18

Gifs it is then. Awesome. Thank you.

1 Like
19

Do you know what the full faith and credit clause is intended for, and why it was adopted?

20

Did you answer his question?

21

But he did ASK

“How would that not violate the full faith and credit clause?” To which I asked my question. I was trying to understand his question, in the context it was asked.