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

51–60 of 878 posts

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

#51

Post by crooked-v »

mannyv wrote: post #7
wdb wrote: post #3

Sounds like you now need to start lawsuits in every state?

They need to do two things: 1. File a suit in every circuit 2. Request an injunction type that's more appropriate Given the number of babies being born every day it shouldn't be hard to do. The thing is, the US doesn't issue citizenship papers. So I suppose they need to apply for an SSN and get denied (since the baby is a non-citizen), which will show immediate harm. It also begs the question: if that baby is illegal…

> and get denied

The thing here is that instead of officially denying it, the administration will just "coincidentally" slow-walk everything indefinitely, then illegally exile the baby to Sudan when ICE notices they don't have proof of citizenship.

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

#52

Post by redczar »

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?

This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.

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

#53

Post by calculatte »

kergonath wrote: post #50
calculatte wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No. It’s better to have a court that does its job. Reasonable people can accept a decision even if they disagree if the reasoning is not solid than “lol we can so suck it up”. And yes, anything close to a majority nominated by the sitting president is a constitutional crisis, in a regime where one is supposed to check the other.

[flagged]

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

#54

Post by sega_sai »

Interesting paragraph from dissenting opinion:

"No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent."

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

#56

Post by redczar »

quotemstr wrote: post #39
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't do a bunch of illegal shit that violates people's rights, you don't end up in court as much. It's not that hard to figure out.

And one guy gets to decide what's legal?

What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.

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

#57

Post by perching_aix »

calculatte wrote: post #47
standardUser wrote: post #34

This is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.

[flagged]

The "i like bagels -> oh so you hate croissants, huh?" framing strikes again.

This is what things going to shit looks like. You may be completely justified in acting the way you are, it just so happens that that's of very little help. Spiraling is pretty tough to prevent at that point.

And yes, very obviously people have an easier time understanding things when they're better aligned with their thinking.

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

#58

Post by UncleMeat »

drdaeman wrote: post #10

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Justice Sotomayor dissents: > Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit. If that’s the case, I’m curious if it could be fixed with a class action, so everyone (or everyone born in the US) is a plaintiff? If that’s legally a thing.

It could be fixed for the class with a class action. But the courts have also don't their damndest to make that hard too. Requiring a class action means that courts have the additional opportunity to say "nope that's not a valid class" (WalMart v Dukes being a rather famous example).

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

#60

Post by sbuttgereit »

standardUser wrote: post #34

This is essentially an ad hoc Constitutional Convention being carried out by 6 people, 3 of whom were hand-picked by the sitting president and another of whom is arguably the most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history. Nothing is off the table. Anyone who thinks the Constitution can protect them should think again.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN