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

151–160 of 878 posts

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

#151

Post by ceejayoz »

themaninthedark wrote: post #67
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.

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…

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

You'd probably be wrong.

> Still, Immigration and Customs Enforcement kept Watson imprisoned as a deportable alien for nearly 3 1/2 years… Watson was correct all along: He was a U.S. citizen.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/01/540903038...

Bonus: They held him long enough the statute of limitations to sue expired.

> On Monday, an appeals court ruled that Watson, now 32, is not eligible for any of that money — because while his case is "disturbing," the statute of limitations actually expired while he was still in ICE custody without a lawyer.

Even a passport isn't enough:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/us-born-ma...

> A US-born Marine veteran who served in Afghanistan had his US passport, a REAL ID driver’s license, a military ID card, and his US Marine Corps dog tags with him when he was arrested by police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which held him for three days before his lawyer demanded his release, according to the ACLU of Michigan.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-ice-detained-c...

> In her study, she found that, on average, U.S. citizens detained by ICE spent 180 days behind bars.

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

#152

Post by watwut »

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.

That is actually what is going on and how right wing justices think.

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

#153

Post by cmurf »

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…

Except voting this person to the presidency has given just over 1000 convicted criminals a pardon, as promised in advance. It’s an unlimited and irreversible power.

The Court has long considered that the president has a duty to follow the law, but also that the Court can’t compel the president to follow the law. That is a political question. Congress alone can stop a president by impeaching and removing them from office. Not only can’t the Court initiate impeachments, impeachment is unreviewable by the Court.

If there’s a servile Congress, it means voters can elect a law breaker as president. They are going to get a president who breaks the law.

And this is what’s happening. People voted for an abuser, a rapist, a felon, a conspiracy theorist who lies about the outcome of elections, lies that VPOTUS can and should overturn them, and even sent a mob to have that VPOTUS assassinated for refusing to comply with that illegal order. Then boasted he’d pardon all those criminals who were in his service. And despite all of this, people voted for him again.

The people got exactly what they voted for.

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

#154

Post by tshaddox »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

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.

I'm personally much less worried about genuine national security matters getting temporarily blocked than I am about general authoritarianism from the President (any President). Given the impotence of Congress, what checks on executive power are we left with?

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

#155

Post by TimorousBestie »

timr wrote: post #130
ceejayoz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

There’s also nothing in the ruling that binds the Supreme Court to uphold it when and if there’s another Democratic administration.

No, stare decisis is not binding. Nor does it still exist.

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

#156

Post by moogly »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

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.

I don't think you understand what the word "balance" means.

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

#157

Post by Almondsetat »

paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

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.

Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later. So by the same logic, this also should go away since it means any judge anywhere at any time can basically sediment history with their opinion

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

#158

Post by stateaffairs »

vkou wrote: post #147
paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

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.

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the…

[flagged]

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

#159

Post by ceejayoz »

monocularvision wrote: post #44
croes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why didn’t it happen to such extent before?

It absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.

Limiting and doing away with them aren't the same thing.

I'd love to see higher requirements for issuing them, and an expedited appeals process to review them. I'd like to see protections against judge shopping (as endorsed by both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas...) We know SCOTUS can move very fast when they feel like it.

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

#160

Post by DarknessFalls »

acoustics wrote: post #137

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its ill…

This administration does not really care about the rule of law. It cares to some degree about public perception. The timing of this ruling is about revoking birthright citizenship, which is a huge Constitutional trampling. There were opportunities four years ago for the SC to step in and they refused to intercede. For example, why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"?

Now we get to see Americans have their legitimacy removed so they can be sent to "Alligator Alcatraz", the new prison being built just for them in the Everglades.

Post reply on HN