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

621–630 of 878 posts

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

#621

Post by firesteelrain »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #618
vkou wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 does take them months or years when they don't care to enforce something. Multiple times they've refused to reinstate a preliminary injection in "assault" weapon bans because it's inappropriate to get involved at a preliminary stage. Then we get a final judgment well we really need "more percolation first." But when it comes to other issues like transgender mutilation surgeries, abortion, or Trump they'll happily…

Courts are not the only remedy

Petition to change laws, vote, protest, write news articles, start a podcast, donate to causes or org’s you believe in, etc

Use the process and framework that is provided

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

#622

Post by toast0 »

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…

I don't know a lot about class definition, but I've been a party through a class to about half a million lawsuits...

Doesn't this just change most of these lawsuits into a class action where the class is say all the people born in the US of non-citizen parents, with the class represntative in the most friendly venue and then a district judge can accept the class and issue the injuction if they see fit?

Then the executive branch can presumably appeal the injuction and the class certification, and in the meantime, the injuction isn't valid for people who aren't in the class, but they probably aren't covered by the executive order either.

And I guess a handful of people immediately effected might file separately too, but if the class is certified (even if challenged) their case will probably be joined?

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

#623

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #619
Retric wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 oth…

> 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?’ And I know multiple "blue by default" democrats who voted for Trump. My Muslim immigrant mom posted approvingly today about this Supreme Court decision, because she doesn't like that th…

Trump is “still paying lip service to it” DODGE was a shit show but the sentiment still exists within the party it’s politicians ignoring what the base wants.

“The Tea Party movement focuses on a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government.” It resulted in a wave of Republicans getting elected who then completely ignored why they were there effectively killing the movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

> Now with Trump, he doesn’t even need the lip service.

He was speaking to Tea party events back in 2016, today he’s done with elections.

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

#624

Post by nobody9999 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #93
scarface_74 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was written - in the Constitutuon - the judiciary interrupts them and the executive branch was suppose to enforce it.

Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.

>Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.

In the United States, the Constitution is federal law. In fact, it is the supreme law of the land. Full stop.

cf. US Constitution, Article VI Clause 2.[0][1]

[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

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

#625

Post by magicalist »

firesteelrain wrote: post #558
vkou wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Follow the process like requiring coordinated multi-district litigation or pushing for appellate consolidation This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

> This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

Constitution? Never heard of it! If and when you feel like your rights are being abrogated, just file suit and the court system will get to you in the order you filed, plus three to seven years.

If in the meantime you suffered hardship due to actions of the federal government, I have bad news for you forwards you link to wikipedia pages on sovereign and qualified immunity

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

#626

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #623
rayiner wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?’ And I know multiple "blue by default" democrats who voted for Trump. My Muslim immigrant mom posted approvingly today about this Supreme Court decision, because she doesn't like that th…

Trump is “still paying lip service to it” DODGE was a shit show but the sentiment still exists within the party it’s politicians ignoring what the base wants. “The Tea Party movement focuses on a significant reduction in the size and scope of the government.” It resulted in a wave of Republicans getting elected who then completely ignored why they were there effectively killing the movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/…

Trump did DOGE to get Elon on board. He wasn’t even talking about the budget deficit until then. And it wasn’t on his platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. In retrospect, the Tea Party’s popularity was probably because it was anti-Obama and his brand of government managerialism, not because of promises to balance the budget.

Any actual fiscal responsibility would be met with massive backlash and will never happen. In the America we live in today, the only way to be a viable political party is to buy votes from relevant groups, like Trump did to win Nevada with No Taxes on Tips.

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

#627

Post by magicalist »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #566
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…

[flagged]

>> The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses

> You seem too skeptical that the Supreme Court wouldn't see right through that.

See right through what? If it's never brought to the Supreme Court, it's never brought to the Supreme Court.

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

#628

Post by dalyons »

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.

Are the courts overstepping or is he just issuing blatantly illegal orders?

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

#629

Post by wtfwhateven »

refurb wrote: post #477
cmurf wrote: post #2

There's no legal reasoning. If there's a D president again, this gets reversed early on. Nationwide injunctions were saught and used by (self-proclaimed) conservatives to slow down and stop Biden immigration policies.

Why would a D president reverse it? It gives a D president more power, not less.

A president cannot overturn it. I think they meant that the moment the next democrat president does something red states find unpopular this ruling will be overturned by the very same justices who agreed with it in the first place. Which isn't an unreasonable belief sadly.

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

#630

Post by speakfreely »

greeneggs wrote: post #554
speakfreely wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even if you are "collecting benefits", to be a citizen you'd have to also be paying your taxes, which should entitle you to said benefits. According to the SF Chronicle, about 72 million US households (40% of the population) paid no federal income tax in 2022. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reaso…

> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection. Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?

Yes, you can twist public benefits to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition, also the first result on Google, reads "Public benefits are forms of assistance provided by the government to individuals and families, often based on need, to help with various aspects of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and financial stability. These benefits are typically funded through taxpayer dollars and aim to alleviate financial burdens and promote well-being." I think it's pretty clear that's what everyone is talking about here.

Are you trying to imply that the people who don't pay federal income tax have heavy state tax burdens? Or you think they're making a dent with their sales tax contributions? The only thing that everyone pays indirectly or directly is property taxes, which averages to about 1-2% of income. Again, nothing close to federal income taxes (for those that pay them).

Post reply on HN