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

631–640 of 878 posts

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

#631

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #626
Retric wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neve…

> He wasn’t even talking about the budget deficit until then

His platform required it.

#6 “LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!” needs smaller government. So it’s the same old platform with a different emphasis.

Or did you think he was suggesting extreme taxes on companies or wealthy people? Deficit spending runs into #3 “END INFLATION”, and he explicitly stated to “PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WITH NO CUTS, INCLUDING NO CHANGES TO THE RETIREMENT AGE”

Obviously the option to not even attempt large tax cut exists, but assuming the attempt was made while also trying to lower inflation the math requires less spending or major new taxes on who exactly?

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

#632

Post by andrekandre »

FireBeyond wrote: post #576
tshaddox wrote: post #444

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. 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.

anecdotal, but from reading the room so-to-speak of trump supporters around me (and conservative media), it seems like having him (or some other strong person) basically accomplishes the same thing; if a company is "bad" the president will take care of it rather than some bureaucratic agency which they have been told (by the various medias they consume) is unaccountable and corrupt anyways

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

#633

Post by acoustics »

Aloisius wrote: post #602
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…

Does the government have to appeal their losses to go to a higher court? Seems like all one would need is a case where the government won at a lower court, allowing the other party can appeal. And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no?

> And if they never win, then the issue is more about legal resources than anything else, no?

Right. If the government wants to take a very broad action, it is happy to eat some individual losses here and there. Most people won't be able to sue.

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

#634

Post by paulryanrogers »

billfor wrote: post #483
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…

We didn't have universal injunctions for most of the republic. They started around 1916 and even then prior to Nixon, federal law required 3 judge courts for injunctions against govt. actions. So this idea of a single judge halting something (right or wrong) only dates back to 1976.

I like the idea of requiring a few judges to agree. And chosen at random to avoid all this judge shopping insanity.

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

#635

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#636

Post by magicalist »

msgodel wrote: post #611
atmavatar wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

> Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?

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

#637

Post by vkou »

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.

> Follow the process

What is the next step in the process? It no longer matters how many times and how hard you win, no precedent will ever be set.

You talk about making better cases and better arguments? Don't you think that the onus is on the government to do that, when they are both doing something entirely unprecedented, and losing every time it goes to court?

The point of checks and balances isn't to make it quick and easy for the executive to illegally overreach. It's to make it hard.

If they want to move quickly, they should stay within the bounds of the law - which is something that Trump in particular, and his regime in general is utterly incapable of.

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

#638

Post by manwe150 »

intermerda wrote: post #620
goodluckchuck wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy…

[flagged]

The constitution is the supreme law for that: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President” “This Constitution, … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Curiously also, there is legal scholarly debate about whether judges would have the right to enforce this clause, or only congress: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_...

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

#639

Post by paulryanrogers »

stogot wrote: post #538
dpe82 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the judgement is in error, it will be appealed and overruled by a higher court. This is how our system works. We're only seeing it as a "problem" lately because the past few administrations have leaned increasingly heavily on unilateral executive action rather than legislation as the constitution designs, and as we'd been doing successfully for the previous 200 years.

What penalty is there for continuous “errors”. Let’s say a judge was known to always apply an injunction for a certain party, can they be penalized or removed? If I become biased or incompetent at my job I’m eventually get fired but do judges ever?

Judges can be impeached

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

#640

Post by msgodel »

magicalist wrote: post #636
msgodel wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.

> Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them. Because what could go wrong with not determining if someone is a citizen or not before deporting them?

Sure ask for ID. But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them. You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.
Post reply on HN