561–570 of 878 posts
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.
You can not share his opinion but do not have to be hysterical like the talking heads in media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem (which Sotomayor raises in her dissent, pages 94 and 95 of the PDF) is that it may never reach the supreme court: > There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order. Contra, ante, at 6 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (“[T]he losing parties in the courts of appeals will regularly come to this Court in matte…
[flagged]
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…
So either a judge can block orders that exceed the president's authority and orders that are within it, or the judge can block neither.
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…
That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
So, I assume that you know that's a poem by someone who was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda? And the entire reason that Lazarus was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda was because she was advocating for Jewish refugees from Russia...who weren't exactly welcomed.
Basically, your proposition that it was era of free immigration is historical revisionism. There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away.
(Castle Garden was established in the 1850s, and the history extends way before the nativist laws you're referring to in sibling comments [1])
[1] https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor...
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.
This implies that executive orders should be the status quo, which deviates from the design of the American system of government. The courts should not be routinely blocking the president because the president should not be routinely ruling by executive order. This change paves the way for additional power concentrated in the executive branch which is already far too powerful. It is the next step towards an authorita…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Please stop with the weasel words. "Functions as a veto" is not what's happening, and wielding the "veto" word is just a disingenuous attempt to make a weak argument sound stronger. > until SCOTUS steps in, which can take months or years If SCOTUS decides that something is urgent, they'll step in immediately. If they wait months or years, then they are signalling that the harm of waiting is not high enough to take up…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They slow down the “forever lawsuit” problem by consolidating claims, reducing conflicting rulings, and giving defendants a clear path to challenge the case’s scope. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than unlimited nationwide injunctions from any one court.
This creates conflicting rulings, because now anyone who is party to a lawsuit has one precedent for them, and everyone else isn't. If a state now sues the federal government on behalf of its citizens that a federal action is illegal, and wins, you now has a situation where a federal action is constitutionally illegal in one state , but is legal in another. How the hell is this consistent? This doesn't consolidate an…
Nationwide injunctions didn’t “force” consolidation. Often, they often blocked it.
We need to follow the process as designed.
This ruling restores pressure to actually appeal and get clarity at the appellate or Supreme Court level.
I’ll admit it’s slower but it’s slower by design. Less patchwork this way.