Interesting paragraph from dissenting opinion: "No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such pl…
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
91–100 of 878 posts
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#92Comparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries? The US has a three-tiered judiciary that moves slowly, Congress has a very high threshold for impeachment and removal (and a slow process), and the order of succession is basically locked in for four years. The people are not easily moved to action, and it's doubtful how much they could realistically accomplish. Univers…
In the USA, some judges are elected, hearings can be televised, fragmented laws nationwide, court filings often public.
In UK the opening of the judicial year happens in a church service (i.e. biblical punishment is common), many judges are freemasons,court filings not public, courts control what gets to media, the court below supreme court can, and routinely do, block cases from getting to supreme court. And More. In short UK judiciary is institutionally corrupt with the elected and unelected the one and the same but press won't say it.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#94Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#95Earlier 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.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#96Earlier 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]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Remember when the whole entirety of the US right-wing lost their goddamned minds for a year or so re: a sitting president's birth certificate?
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#98Earlier 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…
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 cons…
A prime example of this is the immigration system. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi... (“On the Ballot: An Immigration System Most Americans Never Wanted”). Americans never asked to import tens of millions of people from the third world. When Congress reformed the immigration system in 1965, they promised that wouldn’t happen. But for decades, there’s been a coalition of pro-foreigner liberals and pro-cheap-labor conservatives that have facilitated massive immigration that average americans never asked for.
Trump, ironically, is a reaction to the very thing the Princeton study identified.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#99Earlier 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.
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.
Yes, congress also abdicated its power. At the moment you have an executive branch ignoring law, precedent, and court orders, the legislative branch that is subservient to the executive and a judiciary in a state of civil war. None of that is right. None of the top-level institutions are working as they should.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#100Comparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries? The US has a three-tiered judiciary that moves slowly, Congress has a very high threshold for impeachment and removal (and a slow process), and the order of succession is basically locked in for four years. The people are not easily moved to action, and it's doubtful how much they could realistically accomplish. Univers…
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy...