Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
481–490 of 878 posts
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. The actual parties will have been shipped off to another country, unable to bring the case, and anyone not already deported would lack standing to challenge the action. That seems awfully convenient for the executive.
Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#483This 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.
>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…
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#485The 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
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Your entire understanding of the SC here, under trump, has been completely distorted by emotionally-disregulating media narratives designed for those purposes. Ah yes, the classic misogynist attack: I can't possibly understand the law because I'm too emotional . If only I were logical like you. > Today's result also does not prevent state-wide injunctions, indeed, that's what they court has basically suggested. Yes…
? I'm entirely unaware of your sex. I imagine many of the hysterical people in this thread are men.
> That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work.
Correct, the SC is supposed to resolve that. And in this judgement, they affirm that they will.
> What's the point of the changing the statute
If the SC wanted to make bribery constitutionally permissible, they would not have made the ruling statutory. By making a ruling on statutory interpretation they are explicitly inviting congress to over-turn their ruling by amending the law. That's deliberate.
> So if the president conspires with the AG to illegally prosecute a political enemy...
No, this is illegal and prosecutable. A "political enemy" of the person of the president (eg., trump) is a private action. You can read the decision, it has nothing to do with allowing the person-who-happens-to-be-president to do whatever they want. A very wide class of criminal actions of this person are still criminal, this is explicitly there in the judgement.
They even clearly imply many of the things trump has done are prosecutable, and iirc, this is raised in oral arguments.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but it has little to do with these SC judgments or their reasoning. The constitutional powers afforded to the president (, congress, courts) are the very foundation of the constitution. All "immunity" here means is that insofar as these powers are concerned, *obviously*, they can only be changed via a constitutional amendment.
The actions of the president, to form the executive, constitute his presidental power. Just as, eg., writing a court opinion is the power of a judge. A judge cannot "make illegal" constitutional actions of the president, just as the president cannot arrest a judge for a judgement.
Presidental immunity in this case has nothing to do with immunity of the person of the president from criminal action taken to further his private interests, that is explicitly illegal in the ruling
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
There's clearly a profound level of emotional disregulation in this thread. Half of the replies are flagged, and votes are going wild both ways. None of this is grounded in the details of the ruling. It's a symptom of how the dissent has been presented in the media. I cannot see on what basis my comment is wrong.
Paul Graham made a useful chart for judging whether or not your rhetoric is actually aimed downrange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)#/medi...
You could have started with a refutation of the point if you wanted to impress us. Instead we're 40 comments deep in a flagged comment chain because you wanted to put your ad-hominem foot forward. When you editorialize your language like that, you dilute the point to something anyone could argue over.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you’re not armed yet, you’re already behind the curve. No one is going to protect you except you and potentially your sphere/community.
unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#490Earlier 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.