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

471–480 of 878 posts

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

#471

Post by tshaddox »

scarface_74 wrote: post #372
tshaddox wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is exactly what more then half the people wanted Donald Trump received only 49.8% of votes in the 2024 United States presidential election.

You’re really pulling at straws. Despite what Michelle Obama says, this is exactly “who we are” and who we have always been from slavery, to Jim Crow, to the dog whistles of Reagan to Willie Horton, to “Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to bring Sharia law”, to “the Haitians are eating our pets”, to the segregated proms that have happened in the rural south as late as the early 2000s. This is what the American peopl…

I'm not grasping at straws, because I don't have any particular conclusion in mind. It looked to me like you were specifically contrasting the electoral college with the popular vote while explicitly claiming that Donald Trump received more than half of the popular vote. I responded with a correction to your technicality.

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

#472

Post by freen »

8note wrote: post #443
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

There are places with absolute monarchs. You could live there you know.

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

#473

Post by grogers »

acoustics wrote: post #137

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its ill…

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

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

#474

Post by lelandbatey »

laughing_man wrote: post #451
lelandbatey wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not mean that in broad strokes. It very specifically was meant to exclude folks such as children of diplomats, as decided in United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 A great summary: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/33057 In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people: 1.Children born t…

[flagged]

Neither you nor that heritage foundation (an incredibly biased and anti-immagrant organization) have read the supreme court decision which I linked to. To save you time, I will quote the relevant commentary by the justice:

> [T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.

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

#475

Post by refurb »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #78
acoustics wrote: post #75

Comparatively, how vulnerable is America to an executive gone wild compared to its peer countries? The US has a three-tiered judiciary that moves slowly, Congress has a very high threshold for impeachment and removal (and a slow process), and the order of succession is basically locked in for four years. The people are not easily moved to action, and it's doubtful how much they could realistically accomplish. Univers…

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.

True.

The US system has power more fragmented than most. In Europe, the Senate often doesn't wield any power (it rubber stamps anything the legislature approves). The executive is a part of the legislative.

In parliamentary system, individual MPs are "whipped" into voting with the party, and can basically be pushed out of power if they don't go along with it. If the party in power has a large majority, there is nothing but the courts to stop them from passing whatever they want.

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

#476

Post by scarface_74 »

laughing_man wrote: post #366
lelandbatey wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.

You're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.

I am sure you would love that same standard to apply to the second amendment

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

#477

Post by refurb »

cmurf wrote: post #2

There's no legal reasoning. If there's a D president again, this gets reversed early on. Nationwide injunctions were saught and used by (self-proclaimed) conservatives to slow down and stop Biden immigration policies.

Why would a D president reverse it? It gives a D president more power, not less.

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

#478

Post by freen »

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.

They are not subject to the law of the land and can act with full legal immunity?

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

#479

Post by cyanmagenta »

acoustics wrote: post #137

The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses. Strategically, the government could enact a policy affecting a million people, be sued, lose, provide relief to the named plaintiffs, and then not appeal the decision. The upper courts never get the opportunity to make binding precedent, the lower courts do not get to extend relief to non-plaintiffs, and the government gets to enforce its ill…

That was a concern noted by the dissent.

That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

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

#480

Post by pastor_williams »

underlipton wrote: post #382
pedalpete wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Should a single person be able to block access to the fire hydrant or do we need consensus?
Post reply on HN