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

61–70 of 878 posts

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

#61

Post by redczar »

gsibble wrote: post #46
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.

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

#62

Post by scarface_74 »

calculatte wrote: post #53
kergonath wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Birthright citizenship is literally in the Constitution

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

#63

Post by throwaway48476 »

kergonath wrote: post #50
calculatte wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

The courts only have so much power because congress is dysfunctional and kicks every issue to the courts so they don't have to be accountable to voters.

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

#64

Post by insane_dreamer »

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]

> ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by any random activist judge appointed by any of the previous political opposition?

yes because the admin can appeal to a higher court; it at least pauses it so it can be more thoroughly evaluated as to its constitutionality

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

#65

Post by insane_dreamer »

Federal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts.

I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". And now that Trump has shown the way, you can be sure future presidents will follow.

Another terrible outcome is that you then have federal orders applied differently from state to state (or more accurately, federal district to district). If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will.

This is right up there with the Presidential Immunity in terms of terrible decisions by this SCOTUS.

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

#66

Post by standardUser »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #60
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]

I'm talking more broadly about this court and its decisions, of which this decision is one of many that are obliterating precedent and directly empowering the sitting president.

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

#67

Post by themaninthedark »

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #37
bluecalm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the administration's position is that at least one of the parents needs to be a citizen or a legal resident. If that's the case the answer to your question is: yes - together with the parents.

And if the parents are on valid non-resident visas? Suddenly the child has no status? Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens. Millions of citizens will be at the whim of whatever racist thug decides to hurt them that day. Welcome to Fascist America.

I would assume that the child would be registered with the embassy that the parents are citizens of and there would be an application for a non-resident visa that would be fast tracked.

Greenland, Finland, Norway and Sweden all have no concept of Jus Soli and as far as I know, kids born to non-residents aren't being deported from the hospital.

>Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are citizens.

I would think a birth certificate would work....

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

#68

Post by redczar »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #60
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]

Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.

Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.

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

#69

Post by throwaway48476 »

axus wrote: post #42
bluecalm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.

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

#70

Post by benreesman »

Henchman21 wrote: post #45
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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]

I did two things this year that had nontrivial effects on my state of mind.

1. I quit drinking for the time being. This had a modest but real effect on my mood and general wellbeing. It has pros and cons, but on balance it's a win for where I'm at and what I'm trying to do. I might choose differently in the future.

2. I installed GrapheneOS and built NixOS, from source, with fairly extreme choices about networking. This had a staggering effect on every aspect of how I think and feel: cutting the surveillance capitalism at the network level is like having a mass of rage and angst and blurry confusion taken out of my head. I will never, ever go back to that.

Its time for everyone to cut the cord. Get a Pixel, an 8a open box at best buy can be 200-300, install Lineage or Calyx or Graphene, and reclaim ownership of your brain.

Post reply on HN