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

281–290 of 878 posts

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

#281

Post by tmountain »

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.

This implies that executive orders should be the status quo, which deviates from the design of the American system of government. The courts should not be routinely blocking the president because the president should not be routinely ruling by executive order. This change paves the way for additional power concentrated in the executive branch which is already far too powerful. It is the next step towards an authoritarian regime and no good will come from this ruling.

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

#282

Post by EasyMark »

esseph wrote: post #253
ljsprague wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hold up. If you're born here And I'm born here .... ?????????? It's right there in the fucking Constitution!

That's what I'm saying, it's one of the most simple Amendments in terms of understandability, yet people will completely ignore that somehow. If the 14th can be loop-holed, we might as well chuck all copies of the constitution in the Potomac and just declare Trump dictator

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

#283

Post by majormajor »

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.

It stretches credibility to claim that the "proper functioning of the government" is broken today requiring a change by something that is ... quite old.

(I think there's a MUCH stronger argument to be made that the proper function of the US government has been broken by Presidents changing thing by executive order because nobody has enough votes to do much in the Senate. It seems like "nobody has the votes to make big changes" should be an indicator that not making big changes is the proper result.)

The status quo would be "issue a ruling, it may or may not get put on hold while the government appeals, eventually it gets to the Supreme Court if necessary." Seemed to be working. Republicans obviously have used this to challenge stuff themselves.

It is unclear why there is a need for giving the government an escape hatch to let them say "sure, we lost this one case, we'll stop enforcing things against these few people, we just won't appeal and will continue to do whatever we want nationally instead."

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

#284

Post by v5v3 »

vizzier wrote: post #144
v5v3 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Comparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries? In the USA, some judges are elected, hearings can be televised, fragmented laws nationwide, court filings often public. In UK the opening of the judicial year happens in a church service (i.e. biblical punishment is common), many judges are freemasons,court filings not public, courts control what gets to media, the cou…

I feel your points are valid but don't really express enough detail. The supreme court in the UK though named the same doesn't really hold anywhere near as much power for the following reasons: 1) There is no written constitution, the supreme court in the UK is only there to interpret existing laws as written not to interpret differences between "tiers" of law 2) The UK has a system that can pass new laws, generally…

The UK is all about 'appearencea' hence why they came up with 'justice must not just be done but be seen to be done'

With ref to your point 1 and 2 , they are not needed. HRA 1998 covers that.

Point 3 - the supreme court was previously within the House of Lords and the one day they got their own building.

The primary and secondary legislation, and leading case law is fine in the UK. Its just that the Judges know what are really there for and routinely falsify the outcomes.

No one sees the case files, no one sees the transcript, only the judges judgement is published and that we all have to pretend is never anything other than perfect...

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

#285

Post by msgodel »

vel0city wrote: post #197
msgodel wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individuals can't (practically) secede. And it is done via the states, for example the state governments choose senators. Right now this is done via popularity contests in every state but there's nothing in the constitution or federal law requiring that.

> Individuals can't (practically) secede Neither can states, either practically or legally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Yeah that's completely meaningless as far as the possibility of secession is concerned. All it means is that if you secede and reenter then all the legislation you did as a separate state is void which is completely reasonable.

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

#286

Post by xienze »

ceejayoz wrote: post #274
xienze wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.”

[flagged]

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

#287

Post by jltsiren »

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.

In modern parliamentary systems, political leaders are not in direct control of the executive branch. Politicians may issue priorities and guidance, but career civil servants run the show. Department heads serve fixed terms that are independent of the election cycle, and they cannot be removed without a criminal conviction. If politicians want major changes, they can change the law. And in many countries, the constitutionality of proposed legislation must be established in advance.

The descent to authoritarianism usually begins with a party gaining enough power that it can override the checks and balances. Which often involves rewriting the constitution.

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

#288

Post by EasyMark »

bluecalm wrote: post #13
mannyv wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need to do two things: 1. File a suit in every circuit 2. Request an injunction type that's more appropriate Given the number of babies being born every day it shouldn't be hard to do. The thing is, the US doesn't issue citizenship papers. So I suppose they need to apply for an SSN and get denied (since the baby is a non-citizen), which will show immediate harm. It also begs the question: if that baby is illegal…

My understanding is that the administration's position is that at least one of the parents needs to be a citizen or a legal resident. If that's the case the answer to your question is: yes - together with the parents.

but the amendment doesn't say that, it's a very simple Amendment at its heart.

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

#289

Post by christina97 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #204
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]

You don’t squirt out infants… please.

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

#290

Post by EasyMark »

bluecalm wrote: post #95
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.

Most of the world doesn't have unconditional birth right citizenship. It somehow functions and is not fascist.

that doesn't matter, they also don't have a 14th amendment that is very easy to read and understand, even for those with fascistic tendencies.
Post reply on HN