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

201–210 of 878 posts

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

#201

Post by magicalist »

Amezarak wrote: post #184
cjk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit that’s fascist is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and the current administration is openly flouting it.

The debate is over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed - the whole legal argument is over whether it is guaranteed.

> it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed.

Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!

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

#202

Post by ReptileMan »

jonstewart wrote: post #186
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.

Judges have never been able to make rulings based on their own subjective politics. They must justify their rulings under the law. I could extend some merit to the idea that injunctions should be limited in complex cases where case law is thin and the law is less than clear. When executive orders are clearly unconstitutional, however, I do not then see any reason for limits.

>They must justify their rulings under the law.

The law that states that growing wheat on your own land is interstate commerce.

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

#203

Post by jandrewrogers »

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....

Many Americans have no birth certificate. My mother, for example.

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

#204

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

redczar wrote: post #52

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction? This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizensh…

[flagged]

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

#205

Post by bobsomers »

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.

What if those people consider what they're being told by the authorities, understand that it makes sense, and choose to take that action because it's important for the public good?

Why are people who prioritized public health during a temporary pandemic "sheep", but the President's supporters who demonstrate exceptionally cult-like behavior, "free thinking individuals"?

You can't have it both ways.

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

#206

Post by ceejayoz »

Amezarak wrote: post #184
cjk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bit that’s fascist is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the US Constitution, and the current administration is openly flouting it.

The debate is over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed - the whole legal argument is over whether it is guaranteed.

If these folks aren't subject to our jurisdiction, how does one manage to deport them?

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

#208

Post by pjc50 »

mannyv wrote: post #106
redczar wrote: post #52

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction? This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizensh…

[flagged]

Quite difficult to file a lawsuit from a prison in El Salvador.

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

#209

Post by Hnrobert42 »

umbra07 wrote: post #190
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…

> The state of affairs is that: Yes, this has been going on for decades at various levels of government. It's very common when it comes to gun rights. The government (local/state and federal) will frequently avoid appealing if they think they might then lose the case, setting a wide precedent for millions of people.

But the difference is that now the government can continue to enforce its policy against anyone who has not sued.
Post reply on HN