[flagged]
> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction...
What a lovely way to frame a statement and put down people who hold a multitude of opinions that you do not share.
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
321–330 of 878 posts
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 fea…
The SC was asked to consider a relatively narrow question of what the limits on equitable remindies in the discrict courts are. In a significant majority of cases they've exceeded their clear authority on anything like a plausible reading of what non-constitutional courts are supposed to do.
Ironically, imv, I think in this case, they didnt. This was, imv, a case where a universal injunctions was actually within the power of the disctict court -- because (and here Sotomayor is correct) the states were being obligated to take on burdens that "crossed state lines" and a complete remedy to relieve them of these burdens actually requires a universal injunction. So, imv, under the history of what equitable remedies are supposed to do, this would be one rare case where the action of the courts could be legally defensible.
However, the SC was extremely fed up with district courts sending inumerable number of cases their way -- trigger happy judges at the distict level deciding they're going to rule for the whole US in a federal system. So, by this point, they've tried many times to stop it, and it hadnt worked.
Here all they said is that you can have UIs only where congress makes explicit that courts have this power. They have done something kinda similar in the APA (creating judicial review of exec action), and can do again here (eg., a democratic congress could give the power in immigration cases; I think its plausible something like this happens). They also themselves retain the right to make such orders.
So they have only really moved where in the system such action is taken, retaining district court's rights to still -- very broadly -- give quite wide injunctions. And congress still has the power to empower the courts (though, as per usual, Thomas indicates he's on crazy pills and implies he would prevent congress from doing that -- that's not a serious outcome though).
Given the problems they faced with district courts, something had to give. They were persuaded, plausibly correctly, that there are enough avenues to prevent this executive overreach without empowering the lowest rung of judges to rule for the whole of the US.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#323Federal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts. I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". A…
> If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will.
They're 100% coming for Obergfell and it's clear now how. They'll arrest a legal US citizen who has naturalized citizenship from illegal parents, born in a state that received an injunction but residing in a state that has not.
The representative of that person will say that they by being a citizen in the other state, they must be respected as a citizen in the other. They will cite Obergfell.
The SCOTUS will revoke their ruling on Obergfell and say, no, you are not a citizen just because there's an injunction in that other state.
The astute reader may notice that this is literally a replay of Dread Scott.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#324Now, the administration will keep doing illegal things, and every individual affected will have to file lawsuits to invalidate the illegal thing - after the damage is already done - because nothing is preventing the government from doing illegal things.
[deleted]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#325This 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.
Mind you this simply meant that, if important enough to temporarily block, an appeal would be needed to ensure that what the President was doing was legal, which is entirely reasonable. This was simply an extra legal check on the president to keep the president inline with the law.
I may be mistaken but this is under the assumption that the government chooses to appeal their losses in these lower courts. So if the govt gets to choose between just not appealing and not having to deal with these injunctions or appealing and risking an injunction, why would they appeal in most cases?
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#326[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 losi…
I don't live in the US, but can't the winning party still appeal? Here in Sweden it is not uncommon that both parties appeal important cases, sometimes with the explicit goal of getting the highest court to make a judgement. Some cases are just more important to get the highest courts judgement, especially those related to government, than holding onto a win from a lower court.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ha…
[deleted]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#328This 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.
Agreed. The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies. In theory it's just an injunction, but the reality is this kind of stuff takes forever to get hashed out in the courts, and Trump will be well out of office before it gets settled. I have no problem with SCOTUS injunctions, but there are too many district courts for this to work. The way things were heading the pre…
He would have been wrong to do so.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#329This is far overdue. The lower courts arent the scotus.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's been enacted into law at least 3 times, for difference classes of people.
1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which covers everyone born here who is not the child of foreign diplomats or members of foreign armed forces stationed in the US.
2. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which extended it to Native Americans who were living under tribal sovereignty.
3. The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 extended it to children of US citizens who are born outside the US.