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

271–280 of 878 posts

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

#271

Post by EasyMark »

bluecalm wrote: post #20
drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

I don't think class action lawsuit is needed here. It's enough for one case to get to SCOTUS and then we will hear their opinion about how 14th amendment should be interpreted. It will be an interesting case I think both 4-5 against and 5-4 in favor of changing the interpretation is possible (with 3-6 and 6-3 less likely outcomes).

Note how they fast-tracked Trump's case so he could do maximum damage before any test of the 14th, and ignored the actual 14th amendment challenges.

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

#272

Post by lelandbatey »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

If you are born and live in the US, how could you possibly not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? Likewise, if you are born in the US to tourist parents who then leave the United States with you, how exactly are you supposed to "collect benefits"? And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits.

Where exactly is the unsustainable part of this?

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

#273

Post by Spooky23 »

acoustics wrote: post #137

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its ill…

Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.

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

#274

Post by ceejayoz »

xienze wrote: post #270
ceejayoz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would th…

[flagged]

I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes.

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”

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

#275

Post by majormajor »

mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

>and the supreme court itself reserves the right to make universal injunctions on iterim orders/policies until they decide the case on a full hearing (at which time they can invalide the law/order)

Doesn't that require an appeal? Or are you saying they'd go put a policy or law on hold even if there wasn't an open case after a lower judge ruled against them and the government chose not to appeal so as to not risk losing more broadly.

Seems like the takeaway here for any would-be executive-overreachers is "lose a couple cases affecting a handful of plaintiffs and ignore those loses."

IIRC the general trend for getting a class certified for a class action is also in the "make it harder to do" direction.

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

#276

Post by teachrdan »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

> Even in logical terms it makes sense: You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Government benefits were basically nonexistent at the time, and besides, with the US population at under 40 million people, we needed more citizens, not fewer. Your "logical" argument is completely anachronistic and irrelevant.

The conservative side of the Supreme Court claims to rule based on what the writers of the Constitution had in mind. This is another example of how they completely ignore what the writers/framers/etc. of the Constitution intended as soon as it interferes with the larger conservative agenda that they serve.

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

#277

Post by EasyMark »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #69
axus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm worried about the trend of civil rights going unprotected until after a Supreme Court ruling.

That's what laws are for. Courts aren't supposed to write them.

There are supposed to be able to declare them Unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional in district 5, why wouldn't it also be unconstitutional in district 10?

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

#278

Post by Spooky23 »

tshaddox wrote: post #154
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.

I'm personally much less worried about genuine national security matters getting temporarily blocked than I am about general authoritarianism from the President ( any President). Given the impotence of Congress, what checks on executive power are we left with?

Appeal to Theil to talk to the king.

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

#279

Post by firesteelrain »

lostapathy wrote: post #232
firesteelrain wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. So every person wronged by the government should sue individually?

Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in

The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it

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

#280

Post by CamperBob2 »

EasyMark wrote: post #245
indil wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

It's not valid. When you're in a country you are subject to it's laws, whether it's the USA or Somalia

They have more guns than we do. It's valid.
Post reply on HN