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

FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

aerotime.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 245 posts

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#141

Post by no_wizard »

gtowey wrote: post #52
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism is to have laws that are virtually impossible to not break. I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional for being overly vague and arbitrary. For example, Montana used to have some maximum speed limits that were just "reasonable and prudent", but they were eventually rejected by courts as being too vague (what's prudent to you may not be prudent to someone e…

> I hope this gets tested in court and declared unconstitutional The rule of law has left the building. The SC is willing to rubber-stamp nearly anything right now. Waiting and hoping for common sense to prevail is what allows authoritarian regimes to bulldoze through existing laws and norms. Even if the courts were an avenue for redress, they are being overwhelmed by the daily barrage of new illegal and unconstituti…

Anything but an administration being able to manipulate the Fed, it seems. Most legal experts believe that will be a hard strike down on the administration

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#143

Post by avidiax »

terminalshort wrote: post #125
fzeroracer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon?…

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.

Other official acts have presumptive immunity.

In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#144

Post by terminalshort »

fzeroracer wrote: post #127
terminalshort wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

See how stupid that argument is?

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#145

Post by refulgentis »

terminalshort wrote: post #125
fzeroracer wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon?…

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.

I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.

Yes.

Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#146

Post by atonse »

penultimatename wrote: post #121
yieldcrv wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that perspective is not backed by data, and the administration doesn't appeal everything very few supreme court cases make it to headline news, and the ones that do are the ones you're thinking about it. those are the ones split by ideological lines, which are less than 10% of what SCOTUS rules on. the government loses many cases unanimously as well. there are some unsigned opinions that do punt things back to lower…

This is literally backed by data. 21 out of 25 emergency docker cases taken up with the Supreme Court were ruled in the Trump administration’s favor. Only one of the cases against the administration was unanimous. At the appellate level, Trump appointed judges vote in favor of his policies at a substantially higher rate than any previous president at 92% of cases. https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-20…

Is there a reason you’re only choosing the emergency docket in your sample size though?

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#147

Post by Bender »

So be a polite and compliant drone operator and when you find yourself in the middle of an operation because there was not an actual TFR, park the drone on the edge of a building roof where the camera can still operate thus the drone is silent, saving power and compliant. Being parked on the edge of a roof with props powered off is not flying.

@FAA can you tell I am still annoyed by your poorly thought out highly spoofable clear text RemoteID implementation and lack of integration to ADS-B... Also, NOTAM != TFR unless all drone operators are using foreflight to consolidate all surrounding NOTAMS which hint, they are not.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#148

Post by terminalshort »

avidiax wrote: post #143
terminalshort wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces. The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity. Other official acts have presumptive immunity. In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and di…

> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.

> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her

No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.

> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.

> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#149

Post by skhameneh »

tantalor wrote: post #142

This is overreach. Congress didn't give them this power. See Loper-Bright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...

It's been overreach since the start of FAA claims on low altitude space.

From what I understand their jurisdiction didn't begin until 500 feet into the air.

Not only is it overreach, it's encouraging impediments on what has been largely considered private property.

Re: FAA institutes nationwide drone no-fly zones around ICE operations

#150

Post by terminalshort »

refulgentis wrote: post #145
terminalshort wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that. As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why. I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening. Yes. Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN