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

121–130 of 878 posts

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

#121

Post by cjk »

bluecalm wrote: post #95
dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #37

Earlier 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.

Most of the world doesn't have unconditional birth right citizenship. It somehow functions and is not fascist.

The bit that’s fascist is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and the current administration is openly flouting it.

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

#122

Post by mariodiana »

msgodel wrote: post #108
acoustics wrote: post #75

Comparatively, 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…

That ship sailed almost 100 years ago. If you really don't like it you should be campaigning for secession. Remember: federal power is delegated from the states, not the other way around.

My understanding is that your characterization is true of the Articles of Confederation, but not true of the Constitution. The federal government's power is delegated from the people.

At the top of the Articles, it's pretty clear that the delegates of the states have come together to establish a league of states. At the top of the Constitution, it's explicitly stated that "We the People […] do ordain and establish."

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

#123

Post by buckle8017 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #40
wdb wrote: post #3

Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state?

> Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state? Every federal judicial district (that's one per state in smaller states, but more in larger states—California has four.)

Doesn't California have two?

North and South?

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

#124

Post by ceejayoz »

timr wrote: post #118
ceejayoz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less charitably, the Supreme Court has said that this president has this authority. Forgive student loans? No authority! End birthright citizenship? Well, he's the boss!

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew.

You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution. It's an even plainer wrong.

It's Calvinball.

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

#125

Post by timr »

teraflop wrote: post #119
timr wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, more charitably: the Supreme Court has says that the president has this authority, in this specific area, and your characterization of this as "breaking the law" is not correct. Edit: actually , even that is overstating it. This is an extremely narrow ruling that is mainly about the powers of federal judges. It's the sort of ruling that the "other side" will trumpet as settled law when they're the ones in power a…

The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. What they have actually done is to put very stringent requirements on how the president's authority can be challenged in lower courts. And notably, exactly the same Republican-nominated Supreme Court judges did not do anything to interfere with exactly the same legal process (nationwide injunctio…

> The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship.

Yep, agreed. I already added an edit saying exactly the same thing.

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

#126

Post by dragonwriter »

buckle8017 wrote: post #123
dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state? Every federal judicial district (that's one per state in smaller states, but more in larger states—California has four.)

Doesn't California have two? North and South?

Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central.

https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-fili...

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

#127

Post by paulvnickerson »

This had to happen. The state of affairs prior to this ruling is that any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exercising his authority under the constitution pending a review, including matters of national security, based on their own subjective politics. It broke the proper functioning of the government. This restores a proper functioning balance of powers.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #65

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". A…

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by timr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #124
timr wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution . It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN