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

531–540 of 878 posts

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

#531

Post by throwaway48476 »

magicalist wrote: post #429
throwaway48476 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Every country has a constitution, usually it's ignored. The value of a piece of paper is only as much as the people that comprise the system that upholds it. If you completely ignore the people and just whine at them about constitution this and that they're going to ignore it and rip it up. Society is also a compact and if the supermajority wants something they're going to get it.

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

#532

Post by kelnos »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #396
bdangubic wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)

You don’t have to defend yourself from the entire US government, just the government representation who shows up and decides to violate laws or your rights (and your life is in imminent danger). “Better to be judged by twelve vs. carried by six.” Otherwise, you’re default dead. Odds are better in jail on US soil than an El Salvadorian prison. I agree full out civil war against the US military on US soil is a differen…

> You don’t have to defend yourself from the entire US government, just the government representation who shows up and decides to violate laws or your rights (and your life is in imminent danger)

No matter how much I hypothetically might train on firearms, I'm pretty sure if a SWAT team (or the federal equivalent) shows up at my house, they're going to arrest me no matter what I do. Well, no, that's not true: if I pull out a firearm, they'll kill me. No need for an arrest then.

And sure, maybe just one or two officers show up at my home. Either I still lose in a firefight, or they leave and come back with more firepower, and then I lose. I suppose before their second visit I can run? Not sure to where, though, and not sure how I'll get out of the country, living nowhere near a land border.

> 5 million people participated in the No Kings protest, more than double total active military members on US soil, for example.

I'm not sure which position you're taking here, but I don't buy the idea that one armed civilian is equal to one member of the US military when it comes to predicting who is going to win. I don't even buy the idea that two armed civilians are equal to one military member. Also consider all the right-wing nut-job militia groups in the US; they would certainly join in, on the side of the military.

Training, coordination, and access to the best weaponry (and ammunition) will win. US military will beat down 5 million civilians, no problem. Probably even 10 or 20 million. I could even see the military bombing cities; Trump already seems to think LA is "in rebellion" based on his National Guard and Marine deployments. Only hope there is that enough people in the military realize what they're doing and refuse to fight. Not sure I'd want to bet on that, though.

For people who believe the US will slide (or already has slid) into authoritarianism, and believe they have a strong chance of being targeted by the government in the future, the only sane thing to do is to leave the country now. It really hurts me to say that, but that's where we are. 77M people voted for this disgusting garbage, so this is what we have.

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

#533

Post by throwaway48476 »

refurb wrote: post #475
throwaway48476 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nothi…

Canada is a dictatorship though most don't realize it. MPs can't tweet anything unless it's approved by the PM. You have a hundred heads speaking with one voice.

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

#534

Post by Tadpole9181 »

ggm wrote: post #500
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not quite. State laws only apply in that state. They are not technically allowed (but sometimes try) to enforce laws on actions outside of that state. So, in this case, you could not be charged with having an abortion outside of Florida, from inside of Florida, based on Florida law. But let's look at the birthright case that this ruling comes from. Let's say Nevada state sues the federal government. The ruling is…

Oftentimes hard to model this from other nations. Here in Australia we have pretty well understood applicability of federal law everywhere, but when the states started enacting changes in abortion law, voluntary assisted dying, decriminalisation of recreational drugs, it all got a bit messy. Especially since we have non-state territories where enacting laws means .. conditional to the federal government with lower ba…

In my opinion, birthright citizenship is undesirable. Like you said, it's fairly unique to America and largely exists for historical reasons.

However, there is no just world where you can revoke citizenship from existing Americans. Especially under the vague terms they used.

Furthermore, the constitution itself is what defines it in clear language. Birthright citizenship can only be changed via constitutional amendment.

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

#535

Post by stogot »

Spooky23 wrote: post #273
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…

Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.

Would this not be by residency? If you are a Oklahoma resident, then do either of those states matter?

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

#536

Post by [deleted] »

mjburgess wrote: post #375
consumer451 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction... What a lovely way to frame a statement and put down people who hold a multitude of opinions that you do not share.

The well has been poisoned by Sotomayor's dissent, and the headlines which come form it. I'm rebuffing a framing that many have taken who haven't listened to the oral arguments, havent read the judgement, and so on. I don't take people who engage in this emotionally elevated reaction to the issue to have a different opinion, I take them to have no opinion at all -- because their reaction isn't an evaluation of the ju…

[deleted]

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

#537

Post by vkou »

firesteelrain wrote: post #521
anonymars wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294

Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up

The whole strategy of the federal government with this is to never resolve the issue higher up.

You keep saying that the issue will be resolved higher up. How? There's no mechanism for it. The winner of a case can't kick it up to higher courts.

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

#538

Post by stogot »

dpe82 wrote: post #426
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

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.

What penalty is there for continuous “errors”. Let’s say a judge was known to always apply an injunction for a certain party, can they be penalized or removed?

If I become biased or incompetent at my job I’m eventually get fired but do judges ever?

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

#539

Post by sylos »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #518
nwallin wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

If some guy on hacker news can think of it, you know the lawyers working with the doj/ice have.

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

#540

Post by acdha »

beej71 wrote: post #390
diek00 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would bet if the democrats did this, the collective right's head would explode. I love how selective Trump is with following the constitution and its amendments, his supporters as well. They will die on their sword for 2A, but 1A when it suits their agenda and all others are just loosely worded suggestions

I don't remember who it was who pointed this out, but it would appear as though the right considers hypocrisy to indicate a position of power. These are the rules for you, but not for me, because I'm more powerful.

From another perspective, this is what is commonly referred to as Wilhoit’s Law:

> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

> There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

> There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

Post reply on HN