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

381–390 of 878 posts

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

#381

Post by majormajor »

tshaddox wrote: post #369
ndiddy wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked pretty well for the Vietnamese and the Afghans

It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.

Even beyond the lives lost on the side of the anti-US fighters in those places, who wants to bet on if the US would give up and walk away and just let any random local armed community in its own territory ignore it?

Will you see eventual retreat, or will you see eventual overwhelming force? The US didn't want to bulldoze these other countries and jail or kill everyone and set up a new state; very different than how the US would handle more Wacos.

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

#382

Post by underlipton »

pedalpete wrote: post #346
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 agree with you, but for a different reason, assuming I am even understanding what is happening here, I'm not American. My reading is that under the previous system, a single district could prevent an order federally, even if every other district judge agreed with the new order. I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country. I would understand that they could limit powers in their…

>I don't see why a single district should be able to influence the entire country.

Should a single person be able to pull a fire alarm? Or do we need building-wide consensus first?

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

#383

Post by mjburgess »

magicalist wrote: post #377
mjburgess wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

This judgement has nothing to do with citizenship, and there's yet no reason to suppose citizenship is under threat from the EO as a result of this judgment.

Many states will have state-wide injunctions, and there will be a nation-wide class action suit to go thru the courts, and if there's any executive policy on this, it will receive judicial review.

The SC will also, whilst this is going on, intervene an basically issue a universal injunction as soon as the executive takes any issue whatsoever with this process.

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

#384

Post by magicalist »

mjburgess wrote: post #375
consumer451 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The well has been poisoned by Sotomayor's dissent, and the headlines which come form it. I'm rebuffing a framing that many have taken who haven't listened to the oral arguments, havent read the judgement, and so on. I don't take people who engage in this emotionally elevated reaction to the issue to have a different opinion, I take them to have no opinion at all -- because their reaction isn't an evaluation of the ju…

> I don't take people who engage in this emotionally elevated reaction to the issue to have a different opinion, I take them to have no opinion at all -- because their reaction isn't an evaluation of the judgement.

It's just civil rights and citizenship. Why can't they all be as detached and unimpacted as rich old guy Kavanaugh?

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

#385

Post by krapp »

nradov wrote: post #305
tmountain wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We tried that. It was called the Continential Congress, and it was a spectacular failure.

If you want the US to be a loose confederation of 50 sovereign nations, fine. Just hope you live in California, New York or Texas, because every other state is going to devolve into the American equivalent of Eastern Europe.

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

#387

Post by majormajor »

firesteelrain wrote: post #373
majormajor wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ruling opens the door for more inconsistency. Things can dead-end in a fractured state much more easily now. Without you telling me any specific harms of the "chaos and inconsistency", and how you think they will be reduced now, then I can only consider the harms of the new potentials for inconsistency which is "the excecutive intentionally does not appeal when they lose to small groups because they want to be a…

These come to mind: 1. In 2017, one district court blocked Trump’s travel ban nationwide, while others upheld it. That led to confusion at airports and legal whiplash 2. In 2019, one judge blocked the public charge immigration rule nationwide, while others allowed it. The rule ended up applying in some States and not others 3. Multiple district courts issued conflicting nationwide injunctions on Title IX guidance for…

And what happened next in those cases?

Was the inconsistency resolved?

How is there less room for inconsistency now? If a judge has said five plaintiffs can play on a certain sports team in one jurisdiction, now the sports administrators need to know every ruling in every jurisdiction that their league functions in?

What makes you think "reform" is going to happen here? Have you read much of the material pushing for increased executive power on the right? It's very clear that the goal is solely to remove impediments to stretch executive power to the point that executive power decides what the law allows.

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

#388

Post by throwaway48476 »

pjc50 wrote: post #212
LorenPechtel wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The three branch system allows any two to gang up legally against the third. But, as we are seeing, all the actual power relies with the executive. They can simply ignore the actions of the other two.

What actually happened is that all four branches were held by Republicans, so none of them is going to hold any of the others accountable.

If the collective elected government agrees on policy, is that not democracy working well?

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

#389

Post by throwaway48476 »

jltsiren wrote: post #287
throwaway48476 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 constit…

An authoritarian unelected deep state is even worse.

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

#390

Post by beej71 »

diek00 wrote: post #314
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

I don't remember who it was who pointed this out, but it would appear as though the right considers hypocrisy to indicate a position of power. These are the rules for you, but not for me, because I'm more powerful.
Post reply on HN