Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 878 posts

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#41

Post by _DeadFred_ »

chriscrisby wrote: post #11

It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.

Those 300 judges are only a temporary check. They get to say 'hold on, we're going to put this on pause while we make sure it's constitutional'. The 9 people that determine what are legal can then unpause that pause at any time if it is not based on sound thought.

Do you feel that temporary checks (that can be easily reversed) to ensure the government is behaving in a constitutional way are ridiculous?

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#42

Post by axus »

bluecalm wrote: post #20
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#43

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

quotemstr wrote: post #39
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't do a bunch of illegal shit that violates people's rights, you don't end up in court as much. It's not that hard to figure out.

And one guy gets to decide what's legal?

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

- Marbury vs Madison, 1803

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#44

Post by monocularvision »

croes wrote: post #31
chriscrisby wrote: post #11

It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.

So why didn’t it happen to such extent before?

It absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#45

Post by Henchman21 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

[flagged]

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#46

Post by gsibble »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #41
chriscrisby wrote: post #11

It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.

Those 300 judges are only a temporary check. They get to say 'hold on, we're going to put this on pause while we make sure it's constitutional'. The 9 people that determine what are legal can then unpause that pause at any time if it is not based on sound thought. Do you feel that temporary checks (that can be easily reversed) to ensure the government is behaving in a constitutional way are ridiculous?

And the final check today but the Supreme Court said those judges were wrong and don't get to do that anymore.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#47

Post by calculatte »

standardUser wrote: post #34

This is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.

[flagged]

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#48

Post by sbohacek »

bluecalm wrote: post #20
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

The administration does not need to appeal to the supreme court. I don't think they would appeal it since it is being enforced as desired.

Indeed, this is one of the concerns of the dissenting opinions.

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#49

Post by matthewowen »

bluecalm wrote: post #20
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court:

> There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matters involving major new federal statutes and executive actions”). In the ordinary course, parties who prevail in the lower courts generally cannot seek review from this Court, likely leaving it up to the Government’s discretion whether a petition will be filed here. These cases prove the point: Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings. Because respondents prevailed on the merits and received universal injunctions, they have no reason to file an appeal. The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions

Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

#50

Post by kergonath »

calculatte wrote: post #47
standardUser wrote: post #34

This is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.

[flagged]

No. It’s better to have a court that does its job. Reasonable people can accept a decision even if they disagree if the reasoning is not solid than “lol we can so suck it up”.

And yes, anything close to a majority nominated by the sitting president is a constitutional crisis, in a regime where one is supposed to check the other.

Post reply on HN