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

81–90 of 878 posts

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

#81

Post by perching_aix »

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]

To clarify, do you think you're uniquely better at this than most / the folks here, or is that not an intended implication? Do you further think this phenomena is specific to here, or was that not an intended implication? Just trying to figure out what your scope is.

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

#82

Post by stevenwoo »

rawgabbit wrote: post #55

What about children born to those on work Visas such as H1B. Does this apply to them?

Citizen or immigration status does not matter, it depends if they are in a state with the case being litigated in federal court or if they live one of the twenty eight states that did not join the case. The Trump admin can make up whatever rule they want for the other twenty eight states. The Supreme Court just narrowed the specifity of injunctions to solely the litigants which opens up a huge can of worms in American legal system.

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

#83

Post by delecti »

vharuck wrote: post #32
mannyv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to actually read the decision. There's plenty of legal reasoning. You may not agree with it, but your opinion is irrelevant. One thing they didn't talk about was structural: the court system is split up into X circuits, and each circuit is independent. Normally each circuit uses rulings from other circuits as a basis for its judgements, but circuits are pretty independent from each other. The Supremes weigh…

>Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense. An appellate court considers the decisions of the courts below it, so it makes sense its actions would be restricted to those courts. What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another.

> What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another

That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference.

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

#86

Post by scarface_74 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #69
axus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.

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

#87

Post by jfengel »

hakunin wrote: post #35
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…

I think this often gets confused. Voting a president in doesn't give them a blank mandate to do whatever they want, such as break the law. And knowingly doing things that might not get approved by courts, but veiling it in a "novel legal theory" disguise is still breaking the law. Just because slow and thorough processes need to take place to adjudicate these actions doesn't mean that these actions aren't worth adjud…

According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable.

I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part is new, though they've been leading up to it for decades, so it's not really surprising.

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

#88

Post by rayiner »

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

#89

Post by ada1981 »

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…

There is some compelling research from Princeton that for 90%+ of the American voting population, there opinions have zero impact on federal policy. It's all lobby driven money.

“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

And they actively vote against the will of their constituents 35% of the time. http://promarket.org/2017/06/16/study-politicians-vote-will-...

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

#90

Post by bluecalm »

matthewowen wrote: post #49
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).

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 matte…

That's a good point. I was under the impression that the current administration thinks it can win a case about 14th amendment in case both parents are not legally in US with current majority but if they are in fact not appealing it would mean they think they would lose.
Post reply on HN