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

311–320 of 878 posts

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

#311

Post by BryantD »

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…

There was lots of debate in the Senate during the passage of the 14th Amendment; much of it revolved around birthright citizenship. Both those who wanted the Amendment to exclude people who were born to those temporarily in the US and those who did not acknowledged that, in the form passed, it did not.

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania said "I am really desirous to have a legal definition of ‘citizenship of the United States. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?" He didn't think that child should be.

Sen. Conness of California said he thought it should cover "the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States." And let's remember, as Conness was certainly aware, that many of those Chinese laborers had been imported illegally.

They knew what they were passing, and they knew it included birthright citizenship. Senators who wanted to alter the Amendment to exclude some people failed.

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

#312

Post by sorcerer-mar »

Jensson wrote: post #261
EasyMark wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you are an undocumented immigrant so the country doesn't know about you then its arguable.

No it's not. In fact the concept of "undocumented immigrant" or even just "immigrant" only makes sense in the context of an asserted jurisdiction.

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

#313

Post by majormajor »

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…

> 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.

What chaos that would be worse than the chaos of jurisdictional fracturing they're asking for here and the possibility to not let cases escalate to courts with supposed national jurisdiction? Rulings were stayed all the time.

The existence of a national injunction seems built in to the job of a federal judge since federal law is definitionally national. Voiding it only locally, or only in regard to specific plaintiffs, seems like a huge wishful reach.

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

#314

Post by diek00 »

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 would bet if the democrats did this, the collective right's head would explode. I love how selective Trump is with following the constitution and its amendments, his supporters as well. They will die on their sword for 2A, but 1A when it suits their agenda and all others are just loosely worded suggestions

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

#315

Post by ejstronge »

JacobGoodson wrote: post #226
monocularvision wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.

trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 You are incorrect.

>trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 >You are incorrect.

You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.

You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

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

#316

Post by thephyber »

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…

> You can't just let anyone in to give birth and then collect benefits; it's unsustainable.

You don’t seem to think the USA is very exceptional…

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

#317

Post by 827a »

EasyMark wrote: post #259
827a wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, pote…

The judicial still has significant tools to stop an executive branch that is clearly acting illegally. So does the legislative. If these branches don't leverage those tools, or those tools don't work, we have bigger problems.

Guess what: You're living in the world of bigger problems.

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

#318

Post by jimt1234 »

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…

> Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right.

That's pre-2025 thinking. Now, in 2025, there are no clear cut rights, other than, maybe, gun ownership.

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

#319

Post by consumer451 »

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.

How is it that the country appears to have been functioning pretty well for quite some time, until now? What has changed?
Post reply on HN