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

571–580 of 878 posts

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

#571

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

chasd00 wrote: post #172
mannyv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The most depressing thing COVID made clear is even in the "land of the free and home of the brave" people will just do what they're told by the authorities.

Honestly, the most depressing thing that COVID made clear is how many members of a supposedly civilized society didn't give a shit about others, or the society itself: only themselves. How many were outraged at the very thought of the most minor inconvenience, no matter how much it might help others.

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

#572

Post by [deleted] »

diogocp wrote: post #564
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…

There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.

[deleted]

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

#573

Post by ceejayoz »

timr wrote: post #567
ceejayoz wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

> “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 t…

> There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. The shift in approach stems from laws in the 1880s and 1890s; again, decades after the 14th.

The full timeline is quite conclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_...

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

#574

Post by refurb »

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…

> any of 700 district judges could unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authority

Not at all. Whether or not the president is exceeding their authority, a judge could block it nationally. It's not like lower court rulings haven't been overturned before.

And the bigger issue is "judge shopping". Want to block something nationally? Just find 1 of 700 judges who will rule the way you want, and file in that district.

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

#575

Post by jayd16 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #563
vannevar wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

But see, it works both ways. If a judge can unilaterally block the president from exceeding his authority, a judge can equally well block the president from exercising his authority. (There is no magic black letter printing on executive orders that is within his authority and red letter printing for those that exceed it. In fact, this is exactly what these court cases are about.) So either a judge can block orders th…

But that's fine because the executive can appeal and is in a much better position to do so, and it makes far more sense for the law to be consistent than to only benefit those with the power and time to fight back.

Since when did we start arguing that executive power must be unchecked for fear of it being slightly inconvenienced?

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

#576

Post by FireBeyond »

tshaddox wrote: post #444
majormajor wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former-red-state-citizen for decades, "basic stuff like consumer protection" is not something that I think has clear broad bipartisan support. Caveat emptor! Regulation [of scammers] bad! Free speech [for scammers] good! "I'm from the government and..." A certain amount of less-partisan stuff does get passed all the time. But, to get more subtle about it, I think the danger if you help pass something like consum…

> As a former-red-state-citizen for decades, "basic stuff like consumer protection" is not something that I think has clear broad bipartisan support. This might have been the case in the region you grew up, or you might be deceived by narratives in mainstream political discourse (which are driven more by politicians, interest groups, and media than by popular opinion). Regardless, there are plenty of national policy…

And what have they done to further those policies? You can talk about support all you like, but talk isn't action.

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

#577

Post by firesteelrain »

vkou wrote: post #542
firesteelrain wrote: post #233

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…

> 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…

It needs to work it’s way through the lower courts.. circuit, district, etc

That’s the months and years part

We can’t be circumventing the process at the lower levels by forum shopping

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

#578

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #181
Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. The case when everyone agrees doesn’t tell you anything. It’s only when people disagree that you can find who has actual power and in this case the general public has effectively zero actual meaningful power d…

[flagged]

> if people mostly disagreed with the elites

People agree on most things for sensible reasons. There’s no country where people are going to be ok legalizing murder in all situations. Similarly we aren’t going to randomly convert street signs to cuneiform or other language nobody speaks etc.

> You’re overestimating how much people care about any of this stuff. I’m in a blue state and I hear almost nothing about it other than from some overly empathetic people on facebook. The “protests” recently were tepid and nearly all elderly liberals with nothing better to do.

> A big chunk of the country really wants mass deportations, and for the most part, folks in the broader left don’t care much to oppose it

I’m not talking about one specific issue here but how much people in general dislike what’s happening. That includes Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

I know multiple hard core Republicans since Gerald Ford who now dislike winning elections only slightly less than they dislike loosing them. As one put it ‘Democrats do a better job of fucking balancing the budget, what I am doing?’

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

#579

Post by agensaequivocum »

braiamp wrote: post #509
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.

As someone said in another comment, constitutionality of an action is national. There's nothing that could be considered unconstitutional in one particular region of the US and not in the others. The nationwide injunction is a tool that needs to happen if the US is ever attempting to be a country of laws.

Partisan organizations are running to judges late on Friday nights, "randomly" getting judges who issue a TRO before the government even is informed of the lawsuit let alone respond. We are talking about blocking the executive from action before any argument is made in the merits. That's not at all consistent with co-equal branches. If they kept this up, Trump would rightly echo Andrew Jackson "Well, John Marshall has made his decision, but now let him enforce it."

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

#580

Post by timr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #573
timr wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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 t…

> There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. The shift in approach stems from laws in the 1880s and 1890s; again, decades after the 14th. The full timeline is quite conclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_...

> Ellis Island was not opened until 1892.

Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s:

https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor...

> The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

Yes, and? I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing. I'm just telling you that you have the history wrong, and that there's a deep irony in quoting Lazarus as some kind of "good old days", when she wrote the poem as a form of advocacy for immigrants.

Post reply on HN