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

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:13 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #140

rayiner wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not quite an accurate description of the Princeton Study. What the study actually shows, if I’m thinking of the correct one, is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. A prime example of this is the immigration system. https://www.nytimes.com/2024…

> is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. The case when everyone agrees doesn’t tell you anything. It’s only when people disagree that you can find who has actual power and in this case the general public has effectively zero actual meaningful power d…

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

Amezarak wrote: post #171

burkaman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by LorenPechtel » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:15 PM UTC

throwaway48476 wrote: post #78

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…

The three branch system allows any two to gang up on the third. Parliamentary systems don't have any checks like this and trend towards unitary authoritarians.

Post by chasd00 » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:17 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #32

mannyv wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to actually read the decision. There's plenty of legal reasoning. You may not agree with it, but your opinion is irrelevant. One thing they didn't talk about was structural: the court system is split up into X circuits, and each circuit is independent. Normally each circuit uses rulings from other circuits as a basis for its judgements, but circuits are pretty independent from each other. The Supremes weigh…

>Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense. An appellate court considers the decisions of the courts below it, so it makes sense its actions would be restricted to those courts. What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another.

Post by chasd00 » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:18 PM UTC

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #43

quotemstr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And one guy gets to decide what's legal?

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." - Marbury vs Madison, 1803