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

421–430 of 878 posts

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

#421

Post by convolvatron »

laughing_man wrote: post #359
convolvatron wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only under the assumption that the governments job is to contravene the law of the land - which up until pretty recently no one believed including the government

You're proceeding with the assumption the government would lose in court, which is not the case in the vast majority of these injunctions.

not a lawyer, but I believe the process involves (a) deciding if there is a case at all to be argued, which is this case there clearly is, and (b) weighing the harm of letting the government send US citizens to Sudan or life in prison in El Salvador vs the harm that would be caused by preventing the government from doing that while the case is adjudicated - which seems to be nonexistent.

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

#423

Post by ceejayoz »

xienze wrote: post #246
ceejayoz wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution . It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of th…

> The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves…

Just to return to this for a moment… this is quite incorrect. Native Americans were explicitly not included. That came later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

"Consistent with the views of the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard, the Supreme Court held that because Indian reservations are not under the federal government's jurisdiction, Native Americans born on such land are not entitled to birthright citizenship. The 1887 Dawes Act offered citizenship to Native Americans who accepted private property as part of cultural assimilation, while the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act offered citizenship to all Native Americans born within the nation's territorial limits."

SCOTUS did rule on the anchor babies thing, in 1898.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

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

#424

Post by joshuamorton »

tiahura wrote: post #143
teraflop wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. What they have actually done is to put very stringent requirements on how the president's authority can be challenged in lower courts. And notably, exactly the same Republican-nominated Supreme Court judges did not do anything to interfere with exactly the same legal process (nationwide injunctio…

Because they weren’t challenged on that basis.

They were.

"C. The District Court’s Remedy Was Improper" is a section of the petition for cert in The mifeprestone case from the Biden admin[0], where the SC overruled the district court's PI, but declined to address the question of whether it's PI was reasonable.

[0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/...

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

#425

Post by underlipton »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #161
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

What *meaningful* action would you have people take? Remember, force is out of the question because it will provide justification for the oppression and make people more willing to accept it.

Brian Thompson's death didn't seem to have any major consequences along those lines. Targeted assassinations seem to be kosher for avoiding crackdowns. If someone were to shoot Peter Thiel in the head, do we REALLY expect to see a sudden descent into oppressive authoritarianism? Or, as with Thompson, do most people say, "Eh, he had it coming," and keep it moving?

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

#426

Post by dpe82 »

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #380
vannevar wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 would be more accurate to say that prior to this ruling, any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authori…

Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power

And if the judgement is in error, it will be appealed and overruled by a higher court. This is how our system works. We're only seeing it as a "problem" lately because the past few administrations have leaned increasingly heavily on unilateral executive action rather than legislation as the constitution designs, and as we'd been doing successfully for the previous 200 years.

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

#428

Post by kenjackson »

threemux wrote: post #342
mjburgess wrote: post #252

[flagged]

Justice Jackson's dissent is honestly one of the most embarrassing things I've read from the Court and I've been reading most every opinion for years now. Heavy on the pathos, completely devoid of cogent legal theory. Kinda reminds me of Breyer, who, charitably, had an esoteric style. Kavanaugh is good to read on any topic - his writing is clear and often easily understandable by the layman. Gorsuch is an excellent w…

You clearly hadn’t read Barrett’s majority opinion. Conceptually broken as anything I’ve read recently.

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

#429

Post by magicalist »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #388
pjc50 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Who cares about the constitution, he said he has a mandate!
Post reply on HN