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

251–260 of 878 posts

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

#251

Post by peddling-brink »

everforward wrote: post #238
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.

From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide injunctions for the named party in a case, not universal injunctions. So instead of one injunction, each person impacted by the EO will have to file for their own injunction. Which will likely be granted due to similar injunctions already granted. So it reads to…

Not all people affected by an EO have an equal opportunity to generate that paperwork. Going to court or getting involved in the legal system have costs, of both time and money. Not something all people have enough of to spare.

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

#253

Post by esseph »

ljsprague wrote: post #237
scarface_74 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Hold up.

If you're born here

And I'm born here

.... ??????????

It's right there in the fucking Constitution!

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

#254

Post by malcolmgreaves »

everforward wrote: post #238
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.

From my reading and understanding, they still can, it just involves an _immense_ amount more paperwork. The ruling is basically that judges can only provide injunctions for the named party in a case, not universal injunctions. So instead of one injunction, each person impacted by the EO will have to file for their own injunction. Which will likely be granted due to similar injunctions already granted. So it reads to…

No it’s not the same spot at all. No one will file injunctions. There is also the possibility that another’s court case for the same reason won’t be decided the same way.

What this means is that it’s now ok for the orange man to break the law. Rule of law will only be upheld in very limited circumstances in very limited areas.

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

#255

Post by LocalH »

ReptileMan wrote: post #202
jonstewart wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Up there in the top five worst legal decisions ever made in the US

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #168
stateaffairs wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 anyth…

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by vizzier »

croes wrote: post #31
chriscrisby wrote: post #11

It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.

So why didn’t it happen to such extent before?

Two reasons I'd guess: Trump has signed as many EOs as biden did in his entire presidency already [1]. Presumably when your executive order contradicts existing law you're more likely to be hit by an injunction.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...

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

#258

Post by NPC82 »

elAhmo wrote: post #240
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.

Not a single decision so far was related to national security. The checks and balances exist and they are/were working, and this is an attempt to circumvent that.

But don't forget the emergency narrative: "We're being invaded!" and "Governors (bureaucrats, etc.) aren't doing what I want them to do it's now an emergency!". This is not only how our dictatorial executive overreaches, but also how its supporters justify the means in their minds.

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

#259

Post by EasyMark »

827a wrote: post #247
magicalist wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If things should be different then we need legislative/constitutional changes lol, yes, like birthright citizenship written plainly into the constitution. What good are your further legislative/constitutional changes worth if the executive can just ignore them except for the single individuals who file suit?

The ruling today very explicitly and clearly does not touch the birthright citizenship issue.

The only reason the avoided is to avoid countering Trump, it's dead obvious that Trump is forbidden by law to do what he's doing. It's going to take months to years for a real 14th amendment case to reach them, meanwhile he's shipping people off to "3rd nations" to imprison them there in the worst conditions imaginable and indefinitely with no court process or trial. Why should an illegal immigrant go to prison, potentially for the rest of their life just because they illegally crossed the border?
Post reply on HN