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

411–420 of 878 posts

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

#411

Post by firesteelrain »

majormajor wrote: post #387
firesteelrain wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, all of these cases are not resolved to this day

Title IX issue is not resolved. Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule. But not before creating mass confusion. Trump travel ban was resolved by SCOTUS as valid once Trump modified the ban

The point is that nationwide injunctions from different district courts created that chaos in the first place, often forcing rushed Supreme Court intervention just to untangle conflicting orders

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

#412

Post by verteu »

Amezarak wrote: post #215
magicalist wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's misleading to simply announce it's guaranteed. Let's not pretend all assertions are equally worth entertaining. Maybe it's "misleading" if you're Stephen Miller, but every court case where it's ever been heard and the legislative record at the time of adopting the 14th amendment show that citizenship is guaranteed. The Trump administration hasn't even raised it in appeals!

The author of the clause didn't think it applied to the children of aliens, so it doesn't seem crazy to me. > Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[30] He added that citizenship "wil…

The Supreme Court explicitly rejected this reasoning in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

> This Court's prior cases... cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

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

#413

Post by int_19h »

majormajor wrote: post #376
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the…

Either way, so long as it's legal to have guns, but they are disproportionally distributed along political lines, it makes sense to try to counterbalance that.

As it is, with gun ownership leaning firmly right, Trump has a massive number of armed paramilitaries that he could lean on. In any large-scale suppression of political dissent, those would be the people breaking your door at night, not uniformed feds (there simply isn't enough of the latter). Thus even if you're anti-gun in principle, it still makes sense for left-leaning people in this country to arm given the overall political climate.

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

#414

Post by firesteelrain »

magicalist wrote: post #401
firesteelrain wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency Courts can still block unlawful policies, but broad relief should come through class actions This ruling doesn’t undo federal supremacy. It just puts guardrails around how relief is issued

> Whether you were personally hurt isn’t the point. Conflicting nationwide rulings from different judges created legal chaos and undermined consistency So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.

Huh? Federal laws apply everywhere.

The rulings just means an injunction only affects the parties in that case or a certified class and not everyone everywhere automatically

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

#415

Post by firesteelrain »

underlipton wrote: post #399
firesteelrain wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it

No. If a ruling has determined that a government action has the potential to be illegal and must be halted for the suing party, it should absolutely be halted for everyone, because you're dealing with an action that's ambiguously illegal for everyone . It's not just the wronged party at the center of this issue, it's the capacity for the government to engage in illegal activity. Once you've identified behavior as que…

I don’t agree because that’s not how our legal system is setup

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

#416

Post by jrflowers »

mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

> Her effect in these cases is profoundly pathological on the public discourse.

I love this. “Everybody that disagrees with me is hysterical and it is actually the dissent’s fault” is a fantastic take. It is literally impossible to simultaneously disagree with you about this and also be of sound mind. I feel like you could have worded this a tad differently, “I am very smart. Possibly the smartest, and the sanest. I am superlatively smart and sane, and my brain is very good.” would have been more succinct.

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

#417

Post by int_19h »

krapp wrote: post #385
nradov wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Continental Congress failed because it gave the federal government too little power, but that was fixed with the US Constitution. There was that long time period between that and Wickard v. Filburn, you know.

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

#418

Post by underlipton »

EasyMark wrote: post #264
shams93 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the damage done by the Supreme Court ending the Voting Rights Act, had the act been in place in 2024, Kamalah would have won by a landslide. Millions of minority voters were targeted for disenfranchisement in 2024.

between that one and citizen's united the GOP takeover was assured.

Not until the one-two punch of Obama not insisting on his SCOTUS nominee being pushed through, and RBG not retiring in time for him to have a second. You could put it as late as the DNC pushing Clinton as the 2016 presidential nominee and/or pushing for Trump to be the GOP nominee (with the rationale that he'd be easy to defeat).

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

#419

Post by goalieca »

consumer451 wrote: post #321
mjburgess wrote: post #252

[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.

You can not share his opinion but do not have to be hysterical like the talking heads in media.

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

#420

Post by mjburgess »

hackyhacky wrote: post #398
mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

> In all of these 6-3 cases where Sotomayor writes the dissent, she writes entirely for the press and reserves only the last few pages to engage in anything like the legal arguments. Her effect in these cases is profoundly pathological on the public discourse. That's one interpretation. On the other hand, I can understand her reaction at the conservative majority's repeated disrespect for stare decisis and existing c…

I'm unclear on which cases you're referring to. Roe v. Wade is the closest I can think of -- its not clear to me that this being handled by changes to state constitutions hasn't been a net benefit to the robustness of abortion law in the US. Or perhaps you mean presidental immunity.

However, either way, its very hard to defend the view that the US constitution entails a democratic limit on abortion.

When the SC rules that something is required or forbidden by the constitution, they mean that it is beyond the power of congress to permit or prescribe it; it is is completely outside of democratic control.

The majority of the court today have a judicial philosophy which was common to the court for most of its history whereby one would only, in extremely certain cases, rule an issue entirely outside of the democratic process -- ie., decided entirely by the constitution alone, as interpreted by 9 people.

It isnt the job of the SC to make america moral, or require the whole of the US to follow how you wish things to be -- their constitutional role is to prevent the operation of democracy in extremely clear cut cases.

As for presidential immunity -- all constitutional centres of power (congress, the courts, the president) have immunities in the exercise of that power. These are required to enable them to function as balances of power against the other. Eg., if the president could arrest a judge for a bad judgement, the courts would not balance the executive.

The court confirmed only that the president has no more or less the necessary kind of immunity that each branch has -- and this is a clear requirement of the balance of power system set up in the constitution.

They left open, very widely, grounds on which a president acting outside of the duties of the office, could be prosecuted. And they clearly believed trump could be on at least some of those grounds.

Post reply on HN