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

511–520 of 878 posts

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

#511

Post by firesteelrain »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #487
firesteelrain wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Public charge rule resolved itself because the Biden admin rescinded the rule.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…

I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.

If "working as expected" means conflicting nationwide orders from different judges, policy whiplash across states, and emergency SCOTUS intervention just to sort it all out..

then that’s exactly the kind of chaos the Court is trying to fix

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

#512

Post by mjburgess »

hackyhacky wrote: post #501
mjburgess wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> misogynist ? 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.…

> ? I'm entirely unaware of your sex. I imagine many of the hysterical people in this thread are men. How is that relevant? The fantasy that any opinion that differs from yours is based in emotional interests, whereas your opinion is objective and logical is the root of many misogynistic attacks. > Correct, the SC is supposed to resolve that. And in this judgement, they affirm that they will. Your argument is tautolo…

> This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling.

Then you haven't read it. It's explicit.

> they opened the door to official corruption,

Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC rulings to make these clarifications.

> Your position makes it impossible to ever find that SCOTUS...

I don't think you've understood my point. My point was only that today's ruling asserts what you are asserting. The SC has explicitly said that they will still impose universal injunctions, still invalidate executive orders, etc. Only that district courts cannot.

There is nothing in this principle which means that the courts can no longer constrain the executive. The constitution only prescribes one court, the supreme court -- all others are created by congress and must therefore be granted these powers by congress.

What the SC has said is that these powers were not given to district courts by congress. They still can be if congress wishes. So congress can grant these powers.

All of this is irrelevant anyway, as K explains in his concurrence, that there are many ways to universally challege this order that do not require extraordinary powers to be given to district court judges, powers never given to them by congress.

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

#513

Post by [deleted] »

vannevar wrote: post #348
paulvnickerson wrote: post #127

This 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…

[deleted]

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

#514

Post by wnoise »

tzs wrote: post #307
Almondsetat wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later. So by the same logic, this also should go away since it means any judge anywhere at any time can basically sediment history with their opinion

> Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later. District courts do not create precedent. Precedent comes from appellate courts.

They do not create binding precedent. They can create so-called persuasive precedent -- something other courts (and the same district in subsequent opinions) can and do cite when they don't disagree.

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

#515

Post by goodluckchuck »

grogers wrote: post #473
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.

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy between litigants, then that is one thing. When the judge they’re going to proactively punish someone any time the law as against anyone… that’s a purely executive function.

In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient. Those in favor of universal injunctions are saying there should be hundreds of judges all racing to rule over the government, and to have their opinions control in the abstract as to cases that aren’t even before them.

If the government forces the same issue over and over there are plenty of remedies at hand: 1983 civil penalties against officers, sanctions against attorneys for frivolous arguments, and ultimately the court can hand the legislature everything it needs to impeach and remove a president by ruling that he / she is intentionally failing to enforce the law.

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

#516

Post by laughing_man »

9283409232 wrote: post #465
laughing_man wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Using the Heritage foundation as a source says a lot. The tree where all the liars and conmen in this administration have come from.

Yes, it's terrible people can disagree with you. How about addressing his points?

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

#517

Post by sorcerer-mar »

stickfigure wrote: post #457
majormajor wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hitler's SA (the brownshirts) weren't government officials, nor were Mussolini's blackshirts. Nor are the Proud Boys. There are many more modern examples of pro-government militias in Venezuela and the mid-east. You never know who's going to deputize themselves as "law enforcement", with the quiet encouragement and plausible deniability of the ruling political party. Guns are unquestionably useful defensive tools aga…

Correct.

This is the actual use case. It’s a pretty established pattern of non-governmental actors like those mentioned being the tip of the authoritarian spear.

Those people should be shot in the face upon entering their first few homes or businesses, while courts and juries will still have the wherewithal to acquit anyone defending themselves.

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

#518

Post by goodluckchuck »

nwallin wrote: post #499
grogers wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that de…

[flagged]

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

#519

Post by bravesoul2 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #438
atmavatar wrote: post #431

Earlier 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?

Do you have a reference to the law about deporting citizens. I can't find it.

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

#520

Post by laughing_man »

lelandbatey wrote: post #474
laughing_man wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

What do you suppose "in the allegiance and under the protection of the country" means?
Post reply on HN