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

541–550 of 878 posts

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

#541

Post by kelnos »

indil wrote: post #219
acoustics wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the president does not have the authority under the constitution to purport to invalidate the citizenship of natural-born citizens. It is the executive that broke the proper functioning of the government.

Your news sources have woefully misinformed you. Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country: "Section 1. 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." Note the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Trump's argument is that people born…

> Trump's argument is that it's not enough to be born here, you have to also be a charge of the country

And that argument is bullshit.

> Trump's argument is that people born in America to tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America

Yes they are. If they commit a crime on US soil, they will face charges in a US court, because they are subject to the jurisdiction of those courts. (They will also be deported, but that's another matter.)

The only people on US soil who are not subject to the US's jurisdiction are foreign nationals traveling on a diplomatic passport ("diplomatic immunity").

> Sure, birthright citizenship was the reason for the suit, but the core issue was judicial overreach. Don't get mad because the way your side was "winning" was by cheating, and they were stopped.

Er, what? Nationwide injunctions have been a thing since the 1970s. No judge is "cheating" by putting one in place. I'm mad because Trump thinks the constitution is toilet paper.

If you want to talk about chaos, this SCOTUS ruling will create chaos, and more lawlessness, and make it even more difficult for people to obtain justice in this country -- a place where it was already pretty damn difficult (regardless of the party in power).

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

#542

Post by vkou »

firesteelrain wrote: post #233
vkou wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not giving individual judges a veto over national law. It's not a veto, it's a delay until appeal. If the lower court is wrong, SCOTUS has never had any issue with settling the question. The fact that the government isn't appealing means that they know they can't win on appeal, and what they are doing is illegal.

Right, it’s a delay, not a final veto. But when that delay applies nationwide, it functions like a veto until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern. But the solution isn’t to stretch injunction power beyond its legal limits It is about who gets to block national policy for everyone, based on one local case. That kind o…

> until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years

It doesn't take months or years for SCOTUS to determine whether or not they will take a case. If they don't want to take it, they are fine with the arguments made in the lower courts, and tough shit, but that means that the loser is in the wrong.

> If the executive avoids appeals to dodge precedent, that’s a separate (and valid) concern.

You're damn right it's a valid concern. It's a valid concern because this removed the only mechanism that there was to force them to address it.

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

#543

Post by kelnos »

cellis wrote: post #506
ejstronge wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tourist parents here for a few weeks (for example) aren't subject to the jurisdiction of America. It's a valid argument to make, even if you come down on a different side This ‘jurisdiction’ claim essentially only applied to people who had a diplomatic status while in the US. A traveler from Canada has no special right against being prosecuted (just like you would not were you to go to, say Britain). A governmental…

IANAL but this argument doesn't seem to be on firm footing due to the extradition laws on the books. Technically I can violate a UK law while in the US and indeed be subject to their jurisdiction.

That's not really relevant though. Being a UK citizen and breaking a UK law while on US soil (where the US doesn't have a similar law), and then seeing consequences for it when you return to the UK doesn't change anything.

If a UK person is on US soil and breaks a US law, they will be prosecuted by the US. The US can choose to extradite to the UK, but that's not really relevant.

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

#544

Post by kelnos »

laughing_man wrote: post #298
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.

Agreed. The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies. In theory it's just an injunction, but the reality is this kind of stuff takes forever to get hashed out in the courts, and Trump will be well out of office before it gets settled. I have no problem with SCOTUS injunctions, but there are too many district courts for this to work. The way things were heading the pre…

> The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies.

Except that it's been working just fine that way since before I was born, so, empirically, you're wrong.

> the president was going to be forced to start ignoring injunctions [...] The Roberts court had to make this ruling for the government to function.

So basically you're saying their way to legitimize Trump ignoring court orders is to de-legitimize an entire type of court order that has been commonplace and accepted for 50 years.

This sounds like "we'll change the law so Trump doesn't have to break it". Authoritarianism it is, then, I guess.

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

#545

Post by toomuchtodo »

kelnos wrote: post #532
toomuchtodo wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

I am prepared to leave the country semi permanently on very short notice (having prepared for this), but I’m also arguing/proposing that everyone should be prepared to defend themselves from other humans that would harm. You can hope for good faith and positive intent, but hope is also not a strategy. No one is coming to save you. Doesn’t mean you’ll succeed, just improves the odds.

Lawyer. Passport. Locksmith. Gun. (A Talk About Risk and Preparedness) [video] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33509164 - November 2022

> This is a presentation about risk, preparedness, and how to do make your best attempt to build defenses against some of the worst threats and potential problems that might ever arise in your life. Keeping your loved ones as well as your community safe is something to always keep in mind and this presentation walks through some of the most critical steps that it is possible to take... before your world explodes in a disaster.

(I work in risk management)

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

#546

Post by kelnos »

laughing_man wrote: post #356
Rapzid wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have been wrong to do so.

Not at all. The president has to protect the powers of his office, and when the courts overstep he doesn't have an obligation to give them deference.

Except this president thinks he has the powers of a king. Which he doesn't, and courts are right to slap him down.

There's no such thing as "courts overstep" in our system. The courts are the final word on things in the US. By definition, they cannot overstep. You or I can disagree with their rulings, but they have the force of law, unless overturned by a higher court.

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

#547

Post by hackyhacky »

mjburgess wrote: post #512
hackyhacky wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ? 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 go…

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

No it isn't, and please stop lying.

> 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.

I don't recall using the word moral. In this case, their interpretation is not supported by the text or intent of Congress. When they do that, it's called legislating from the bench, which are you are okay with, because in your mind SCOTUS can never be wrong.

> 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.

There is nothing extraordinary about it. They've been doing it for centuries, but strangely SOCTUS chooses this moment to break with history. And again, you're fine with it, because "rule of law" does not mean anything to you.

The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. If the executive branch is not constrained by the law (as in your reading, judges cannot tell the executive what to do), then the executive branch is above the law. That's a monarchy. We fought a war to avoid just such an outcome.

EDIT: I feel like you're arguing with someone else. You respond to arguments that I didn't make and ignore the arguments that I do. You've been so conditioned to performatively support "your side" that you can't even bring yourself to read what the other side says. I never suggested that SCOTUS has an obligation to behave "morally", only that that must interpret the law and the Constitution, and then I pointed out cases where they have failed to do that.

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

#548

Post by kelnos »

firesteelrain wrote: post #216
vkou wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state of affairs is that: 1. The executive is doing something illegal to hundreds of thousands of people. 2. Dozens and hundreds of people sue them. 3. The executive loses in court. 4. The executive does not appeal to the supreme court the cases it lost. 5. Thus, no binding precedent that stops the illegal action in #1 is set. This is actual lawless lunacy, and this enshrines it as SOP going forward. Is this the…

I get the concern, but this ruling doesn’t stop courts from checking illegal executive action. It just says injunctions should only apply to the actual parties in the case. Nationwide injunctions were never clearly authorized by statute, and letting any one of 700 district judges block a federal policy everywhere created chaos and forum shopping. If a policy is truly unconstitutional, the proper path is a class actio…

> Not giving individual judges a veto over national law.

An injunction is not a veto. I'm tired of people using this disingenuous phrasing in order to make a weak argument sound stronger.

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

#549

Post by sorcerer-mar »

kelnos wrote: post #532
toomuchtodo wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pu…

Read the history of authoritarian movements.

The tip of the spear is consistently a bunch of incels and incel-adjacent losers. Think Meal Team 6, not Seal Team 6.

The vast majority of Americans won’t “see” anything, but there could also be all sorts of opportunists taking advantage of social dysfunction.

A million good reasons to go buy a gun, and the only reasons not to are either fatalism that you’re completely fucked or blind faith that nothing could possibly happen.

It is illogical to think either of those but find the in-between state so implausible that it’s not worth hedging with $<1000.

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

#550

Post by firesteelrain »

vkou wrote: post #522
firesteelrain wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing against our existing immigration laws that the executive has to enforce?

It would be nice, for a start, if it actually followed the laws its supposed to enforce. Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?

I never said anything about stripping citizenship from people. Can you clarify?
Post reply on HN