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

171–180 of 878 posts

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

#171

Post by Amezarak »

burkaman wrote: post #139
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…

I think that comment is referring to Trump v. United States, where the court said that a president cannot be held accountable for using a Constitutional authority to break the law. It is very literally "a blank mandate to break the law". For example, a president is granted authority to command the military and issue pardons. They have absolute immunity for any act performed using these authorities, including illegal…

This was also discussed in the Constitutional Convention, where the participants decided the impeachment process, and failing that, four-year terms, were a sufficient remedy.

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

#172

Post by chasd00 »

mannyv wrote: post #105
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…

[flagged]

The most depressing thing COVID made clear is even in the "land of the free and home of the brave" people will just do what they're told by the authorities.

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

#173

Post by jayd16 »

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.

> based on their own subjective politics.

You mean like under their own judgement?

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

#174

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

dontlikeyoueith wrote: post #37
bluecalm wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

[flagged]

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

#175

Post by tshaddox »

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…

Also, any time anyone actually brings up any details about Presidential elections you'll quick get many people rushing to explain how the people do not in fact directly elect the President and how this is such an incredibly brilliant idea.

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

#176

Post by slater »

chasd00 wrote: post #172
mannyv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The most depressing thing COVID made clear is even in the "land of the free and home of the brave" people will just do what they're told by the authorities.

Instead of listening to some randos on the internet who "did my own research"?

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

#177

Post by timr »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #155
timr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

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

If it was not binding, did it ever exist?

Anyway, there's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. This argument terminates in noise. It's just partisan fretting.

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

#178

Post by LorenPechtel »

yieldcrv wrote: post #9

Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job. , instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the consti…

How are they not doing their job?

A judge's job is to *judge*. They have basically zero ability to gather evidence, that is the responsibility for the parties to the case.

Would you have them issue a ruling before being presented with evidence? That makes no sense. But at the same time harm can come from not issuing a ruling. Thus we have injunctions--if a judge feels a case is likely to prevail they can issue an injunction prohibiting actions which inflict harm that can't be remedied by the resolution of the case.

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

#179

Post by thatfrenchguy »

acoustics wrote: post #149
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.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

I know words are just words, but trying to re-interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" is such a ridiculous over-reach.

Enjoy the chaos though, because some later administration as a revenge will very likely strip the rights of folks who can't show a naturalization certificate in the same way.

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

#180

Post by tw04 »

root_axis wrote: post #167
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…

When the Supreme Court has multiple members who have and continue to openly break the law themselves, they have a vested interest in keeping a party in power who is also openly corrupt.
Post reply on HN