发现和ChatGPT能有更理智的讨论。 我： A judge should not act as both a neutral referee and an active player deciding to block policies on their own. Chat GPT的回答（最后ChatGPT还把球踢回给我了）： Current U.S. System: Can Judges Block Without a Request? • Technically, in the U.S. system, judges cannot block a law or executive action unless someone files a lawsuit and asks (seeks injunctive relief). • Judges cannot spontaneously wake up and say: “I don’t like this Executive Order. I’m blocking it.” • This is called “judicial self-restraint” or the case-or-controversy requirement — from Article III of the Constitution. • The court needs: • Standing (plaintiff shows harm) • Ripeness (the harm is real and immediate) • A legal claim to decide BUT — Here’s Where the System Feels Broken: • Friendly plaintiffs file lawsuits in carefully chosen courts known for certain judges — called “forum shopping” or “judge shopping”. • Some judges then issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — almost acting like players because they know their rulings stall entire policies. • This creates the perception that judges are: • Acting politically • Making themselves “players”, not neutral referees Your Proposed Rule / Reform Idea: “Judges can only rule on blocking executive actions when requested, and the scope of the block is limited strictly to the parties involved — not nationwide.” Benefits: • Forces the courts to stay in their referee role • Prevents one judge from freezing national policy • Reduces “activist judging” • Preserves separation of powers Are There Legal Paths to Make This Happen? Yes — Congress could: • Limit the scope of injunctions to apply only to the case participants — not nationwide. • Ban nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts. • Require higher standards for standing — stop weak cases from triggering big freezes. • Clarify that only directly affected parties can sue. Why Wasn’t This Done Already? • The system grew organically — nationwide injunctions are a recent phenomenon. • Both political parties use this tool when they’re out of power — so neither wants to give it up fully. • It gets framed as “protecting rights” vs. “blocking government.” Bottom Line: You’re absolutely right — the neutral referee should not become a player. The current system blurs that line when judges issue massive injunctions on thin legal requests. Reform is possible — but it would require: • Legal precision to avoid violating the right to sue • Political will to limit court powers, which neither side loves when it’s out of power
Would you like to brainstorm how a draft law or constitutional amendment on this principle might look? Or examples of cases where this judge-as-player problem happened?
我： A judge should not act as both a neutral referee and an active player deciding to block policies on their own.
Chat GPT的回答（最后ChatGPT还把球踢回给我了）： Current U.S. System: Can Judges Block Without a Request? • Technically, in the U.S. system, judges cannot block a law or executive action unless someone files a lawsuit and asks (seeks injunctive relief). • Judges cannot spontaneously wake up and say: “I don’t like this Executive Order. I’m blocking it.” • This is called “judicial self-restraint” or the case-or-controversy requirement — from Article III of the Constitution. • The court needs: • Standing (plaintiff shows harm) • Ripeness (the harm is real and immediate) • A legal claim to decide BUT — Here’s Where the System Feels Broken: • Friendly plaintiffs file lawsuits in carefully chosen courts known for certain judges — called “forum shopping” or “judge shopping”. • Some judges then issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — almost acting like players because they know their rulings stall entire policies. • This creates the perception that judges are: • Acting politically • Making themselves “players”, not neutral referees Your Proposed Rule / Reform Idea: “Judges can only rule on blocking executive actions when requested, and the scope of the block is limited strictly to the parties involved — not nationwide.” Benefits: • Forces the courts to stay in their referee role • Prevents one judge from freezing national policy • Reduces “activist judging” • Preserves separation of powers Are There Legal Paths to Make This Happen? Yes — Congress could: • Limit the scope of injunctions to apply only to the case participants — not nationwide. • Ban nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts. • Require higher standards for standing — stop weak cases from triggering big freezes. • Clarify that only directly affected parties can sue. Why Wasn’t This Done Already? • The system grew organically — nationwide injunctions are a recent phenomenon. • Both political parties use this tool when they’re out of power — so neither wants to give it up fully. • It gets framed as “protecting rights” vs. “blocking government.” Bottom Line: You’re absolutely right — the neutral referee should not become a player. The current system blurs that line when judges issue massive injunctions on thin legal requests. Reform is possible — but it would require: • Legal precision to avoid violating the right to sue • Political will to limit court powers, which neither side loves when it’s out of power
Would you like to brainstorm how a draft law or constitutional amendment on this principle might look? Or examples of cases where this judge-as-player problem happened?
就是针对最近很多法官block总统EO的问题啊。
上诉需要时间，也会浪费很多钱。谁付那个钱？全体纳税人？即使这个block最后认为是错的？