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

591–600 of 878 posts

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

#591

Post by mindslight »

kelnos wrote: post #559
mindslight wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They will die on their sword for 2A No, they will not. Remember when Breonna Taylor was summarily executed for Kenneth Walker exercising his second amendment right to night time home defense - one of the exact scenarios the gun-fundamentalists are always fantasizing about - but then the Trumpists came out on the side of licking the jackboots? Personally, I think it is likely that sometime during this Trump "preside…

I mean, I think you're only reinforcing GP's point: conservatives are hypocrites, even when it comes to the issues they consider sacred. They'll flip if it serves their interests better.

Yes, and my point is that this isn't even about the traditional political issues and tribal squabbling. I'm a libertarian. I was hating on the "deep state" before it was cool. Still, as an American it's time to circle the wagons - anyone with half a brain should be dead set against Trumpism. We've been taking the rule of law for granted, and we really need to stop.

Furthermore, I think it's bad to continue calling this movement "conservative", as it helps disguise their aims as business-as-usual rather than the sea change towards destruction of the American experiment. At best they used to be conservative. Then they got angry that the leaders they would choose kept selling them out and that fundamentalism didn't produce effective results, so they gave up on their constructive values and fell into blind team allegiance. Now they're just reactionary/autocratic/authoritarian/fascist.

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

#592

Post by ceejayoz »

timr wrote: post #580
ceejayoz wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 som…

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

That's not "a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty" (it's in Battery Park, Manhattan), and performed a significantly different role.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 "restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or 'any person unable to take care of him or herself.'… [creating] what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration"

The 14th Amendment, having been approved decades before we had that first of immigration laws on the books, was approved in a historical context where "illegal immigration" was essentially not a thing.

> I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing.

Perhaps don't jump into a thread about the legal basis of it, then. This particular bit is discussing the claim made at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44400640, where another user claims the drafters of the Amendment would've opposed "anchor babies".

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

#593

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jayd16 wrote: post #575
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you think that's what I'm arguing, you have seriously misread me.

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

#594

Post by sorcerer-mar »

int_19h wrote: post #413
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…

Either way, so long as it's legal to have guns, but they are disproportionally distributed along political lines, it makes sense to try to counterbalance that. As it is, with gun ownership leaning firmly right, Trump has a massive number of armed paramilitaries that he could lean on. In any large-scale suppression of political dissent, those would be the people breaking your door at night, not uniformed feds (there s…

If for no other reason than to disabuse right wingers of the notion, as much as possible, that the left wing isn't armed. Which FWIW I think left-wingers are actually quite a bit more armed than the ammosexuals would presume.

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

#595

Post by bravesoul2 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #565
bravesoul2 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t know what you are referring to

First paragraph of TFA

> The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship

See also:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

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

#596

Post by vannevar »

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…

Sure. And if their judgment is deemed incorrect, it will be overturned on appeal. If the matter is urgent, appeal will be expedited. That's how the system works. You can certainly argue that we need more courts to handle the current workload, but let's directly address that issue rather than curtailing the injunction power to reduce the work.

Bear in mind that this was a case where the multiple courts who considered the issue were unanimous in their opinion that the President was very likely to lose on the merits. Exactly the kind of case where there should be an injunction.

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

#597

Post by msgodel »

bravesoul2 wrote: post #595
firesteelrain wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know what you are referring to

First paragraph of TFA > The US supreme court has supported Donald Trump’s attempt to limit lower-court orders that have so far blocked his administration’s ban on birthright citizenship See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_th...

Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Most countries don't do that because the incentives it creates are kind of insane and very destructive in practice.

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

#598

Post by CyanLite2 »

djoldman wrote: post #467
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…

I'm not a lawyer. What's the chance that this could be addressed via class action?

High likelihood and even Mustice Thomas mentioned it being high.

Even then, it only affects those in the class. E.g., it wouldn’t stop across the board federal enforcement as unconstitutional. It would take take a better part of a decade for that class action to move forward.

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

#599

Post by atmavatar »

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?

I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was sweeping people off the streets and quickly shipping them to different countries intentionally and explicitly in contravention of due process.

If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already be stuck in El Salvadorean (or South Sudanese, etc.) prisons and unable to challenge it in US courts.

In other words, ICE effectively gets carte blanche to continue violating constitutional due process under the ruling. The "judicial overreach" complaint is a distraction - injunctions can always be appealed at a higher level in the court system (excepting when the SC does it themselves), so there was already a mechanism to handle problematic injunctions.

The implications for the unconstitutional executive order regarding birthright citizenship is just as gross, as an individual whose citizenship gets restored via court challenge will almost certainly face repeated citizenship challenges by other red states for the rest of their lives, any of which may require additional time in court to address.

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

#600

Post by timr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #592
timr wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 som…

> Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s That's not "a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty" (it's in Battery Park, Manhattan), and performed a significantly different role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 "restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or 'any person unable to take care of him or…

Yes, I got the exact island mixed up. Not really relevant to my point.
Post reply on HN