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

161–170 of 878 posts

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

#161

Post by LorenPechtel »

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…

What *meaningful* action would you have people take?

Remember, force is out of the question because it will provide justification for the oppression and make people more willing to accept it.

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

#162

Post by tshaddox »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #135
dayofthedaleks wrote: post #129

This is functionally equivalent to the Enabling Act of 1933. [0] [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

Only eerily not legislated

Our legislature willingly gave up its power quite a while ago.

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

#163

Post by Tadpole9181 »

eschaton wrote: post #133
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, doesn't this just... End the constitution as a whole? So long as the current executive wants some unconstitutional thing, they get that unconstitutional thing in every state on their side in perpetuity? The constitution is now... per-litigant?

That’s the end goal. And to take over the other states too.

Oh, of course. Because it's federal law, being in a state with an injunction isn't actually a protection. A federal LEO can detain & relocate you, charging you with violating a law in another state where there is no such injunction.

This is a whole-sale shredding of the constitution.

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

#164

Post by scarface_74 »

tiahura wrote: post #145
sega_sai wrote: post #54

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…

[flagged]

The President is literally taking away citizenship. What can be more fundamental than that?

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

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

buckle8017 wrote: post #142
dragonwriter wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central. https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/cmecf-e-fili...

Did that change recently, id swear there was only two options on.

Not that recently; the change from 2 to 4 was in 1966.

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-...

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

#166

Post by aaomidi »

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 balance of powers have been broken for over a century at this point with ever increasing “emergency” declarations that don’t go away, giving the executive branch immense power.

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

#167

Post by root_axis »

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 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

This ruling does not "restore" a functioning balance, it damages it. This has never been a problem in the past because previous administrations (regardless of politics) didn't take illegal actions daily. Framing it as "politics" is disingenuous as many of the judges ruling against Trump were appointed by him.

The system was working as intended to check an executive acting outside of the law, but once again, the supreme court continues to empower the executive.

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

#168

Post by vkou »

stateaffairs wrote: post #158
vkou wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

> Of course, because innocent until proven guilty.

The purpose of courts litigating the legality of executive actions is not establishing innocence or guilt, so what you're saying is completely irrelevant.

The president doesn't go to prison because some court found that he signed an illegal executive order. (But it sounds like you maybe think that should be the case. It's hard to tell, because you aren't saying anything coherent.)

> The POTUS doesn't need to ask for permission to politicized local judges

Let's play a simple game. If he signs a blatantly unconstitutional and illegal EO ordering the US Marshals to have you and your family arrested, tortured, and shot tomorrow, whose permission do you think he should need? Which parts of the government would be able to stop him?

You seem to think that no 'politicized'[1] judge should be allowed to say "Whoa, hold on there, that may be illegal."

---

[1] What the hell does 'politicized' mean? Is there a single person in government who is not 'politicized'? Is SCOTUS somehow not 'politicized'? Is the executive?

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

#169

Post by williamdclt »

Almondsetat wrote: post #157
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

Many people do think this should go away yes. Common law VS statutory law is a constant debate

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

#170

Post by thatfrenchguy »

moogly wrote: post #156
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.

"balance" is when the people you agree with get more power than they should right?
Post reply on HN