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

301–310 of 878 posts

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

#301

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

What benefits are you collecting?

The core premise of your racist rant is built around a the massive edge case. Reality is this policy will probably disenfranchise more children of American soldiers born abroad than prevent the alien invasion you’re scared of.

The notion that the sins of the father impact the child is repugnant. The interests of the nation as a whole not allowing a clear violation of the birthright of our fellow citizens have to be addressed in a lower court, as the Supreme Court isn’t even required to hear their case.

You’re allowing yourself to be manipulated into expanding the power of an executive who will never leave and a court whose power and individual avoidance of culpability for bribery and corruption. I suppose you’ll shrug when we decide that the electoral college can choose to follow the “silent majority” as opposed to the voters.

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

#302

Post by jimt1234 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #165
buckle8017 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did that change recently, id swear there was only two options on.

Not that recently; the change from 2 to 4 was in 1966. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/about-federal-...

Well, I'm confident the number will go back to 2 by the end of this current presidential term.

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

#303

Post by magicalist »

mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

> After reading her dissent one could not imagine anything Kavanaugh said would even be possible, yet he writes a concurrence with the majority.

What? Seems like you're working backwards from wanting to spout about Sotomayor. This is exactly the gamesmanship she pointed out the majority allowed the Trump administration to play with.

Look at all these fun, lengthy, expensive legal remedies you can attempt over the next few years to protect your basic rights while the executive branch enacts plainly unconstitutional policies. Someone count the number of nationwide injunctions during the last four years where the majority could have stepped in to swat down the trend but didn't, but instead chose this one.

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

#304

Post by EasyMark »

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…

Right but those countries also don't have a 14th amendment either

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

#305

Post by nradov »

tmountain wrote: post #281
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 authorita…

Having a strong federal government in the first place deviates from the design of the American system of government. We ought to eviscerate federal government power and devolve most executive power back to the several States. That would make national politics far less contentious.

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

#306

Post by laughing_man »

scarface_74 wrote: post #164
tiahura wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Birthright citizenship was never enacted into law. It was a policy change by the State Department early in the 20th century. Since Trump controls the State Dept, has the power to make the change - Congress needs to deal with this.

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

#307

Post by tzs »

Almondsetat wrote: post #157
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.

Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later. So by the same logic, this also should go away since it means any judge anywhere at any time can basically sediment history with their opinion

> Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later.

District courts do not create precedent. Precedent comes from appellate courts.

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

#308

Post by majormajor »

mjburgess wrote: post #294
majormajor wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 losi…

Not necessarily, though I'd guess what Kavanaugh imagines is that many states will obtain state-wide injunctions that make executing an order like this practically impossible (indeed, that is what the SC has said should happen next) -- and, imv, he believes there is a nation-wide class in-play and this will go to a nation-wide class action. At which time the executive will be entirely boxed in. Given this, the execut…

In that case than this change seems entirely pointless. Obviously there are plenty of states that are highly partisan in either direction. So it seems like the judicious thing to do would've been like "the status quo is fine, rulings that higher courts think are egregious can still be stayed pending appeal."

It's hard to believe it's so innocuous given that (a) it is such a new approach to the issue for a not-new feature of US law and (b) the broader literature being pushed by the people pushing for this change.

Instead it feels like the song and dance around how some Senators would try to get SC justice nominees to say they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade - distractive performance that's utterly non-binding and an obvious smokescreen.

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

#310

Post by sorcerer-mar »

ceejayoz wrote: post #195
ReptileMan wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prayer mostly. Or actually fixing the congress.

Trump did once note an additional option. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...

Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values.

People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't happen here" beliefs being an actual impediment to authoritarianism.

[0]: https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introd...

Post reply on HN