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

Post by 20after4 » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:33 PM UTC

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…

Post by TimorousBestie » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:34 PM UTC

timr wrote: post #177

TimorousBestie wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

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.

Post by vkou » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #216

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…

I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class actio…

Post by timr » Fri, Jun 27, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

TimorousBestie wrote: post #223

timr wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> There's nothing that binds any Supreme Court to do anything at all. We agree. So your remark about “nothing in the ruling says. . .” was actually irrelevant to the broader point. From a lacuna in a decision we can conclude nothing.