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

641–650 of 878 posts

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

#641

Post by magicalist »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #530
matthewowen wrote: post #49

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]

> That is terrible jurisprudence, but at least it’s honest. Sotomayor is overtly stating that she’s made up her mind and will not consider the possibility that maybe the 14th Amendment might mean something other than she already thinks

can you quote that part where she says this or even offers her own opinion? Because the only relevant part

> Every court to consider the Citizenship Order’s merits has found that it is unconstitutional in preliminary rulings

seems like a statement of fact?

(of course, it's also beyond silly to suggest it's bad or even unusual for issued opinions (dissents or otherwise) not to contain, you know, opinions).

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

#642

Post by ggm »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #534
ggm wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oftentimes hard to model this from other nations. Here in Australia we have pretty well understood applicability of federal law everywhere, but when the states started enacting changes in abortion law, voluntary assisted dying, decriminalisation of recreational drugs, it all got a bit messy. Especially since we have non-state territories where enacting laws means .. conditional to the federal government with lower ba…

In my opinion, birthright citizenship is undesirable. Like you said, it's fairly unique to America and largely exists for historical reasons. However, there is no just world where you can revoke citizenship from existing Americans. Especially under the vague terms they used. Furthermore, the constitution itself is what defines it in clear language. Birthright citizenship can only be changed via constitutional amendme…

The revocation is chilling, yes. Australia has regrettably been behaving of late as if ending your prison sentence is not the end, and deporting dual nationals to their native citizenship after sentence completed. It's just cruelty, and in many cases makes externalities of Australian problems.

Some people with no lived experience of "homeland" have been sent "back there" and in related cases, Australian indigenous have been threatened with never having had citizenship because of association with neighbouring countries. The courts came down pretty heavily on that one thank goodness.

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

#643

Post by wtfwhateven »

yieldcrv wrote: post #23
mistrial9 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?

[flagged]

It's not remotely accurate and all it does is demonstrate you have no understanding on how any of it works. See the other replies for an explanation. Oddly (and tellingly) you ignored them.

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

#644

Post by wtfwhateven »

mistrial9 wrote: post #17
yieldcrv wrote: post #9

Judges were using injunctions to avoid putting their name behind a ruling. They can absolutely still strike down a law or executive branch policy. This forces judges to actually do their job. , instead of a nationwide injunction while they decide if they want to do their job later. It doesn’t actually alter some fabric of our democracy or checks and balances, because the judges had already gone beyond what the consti…

this seems more emphatic than convincing.. Can you rewrite this so that it addresses the legal principles at hand, instead of repeating "judges dont do their jobs" ?

It has zero convincing arguments. It describes itself as a "technofeudalist", anything it says should be immediately discarded. It proudly hates the constitution and freedom. Lying about the very mechanisms meant to stop tyrants (something it is opposed to) is simply a furtherance of its treasonous and anti-American agenda.

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

#645

Post by morkalork »

AngryData wrote: post #182
yongjik wrote: post #94

[flagged]

So what do you want 2A supporters to do exactly? Start shooting government officials? Because I guarantee you would call them nut job terrorists if they did.

Strange how that nutjob in Minnesota hasn't been charged with anything terrorism related isn't it though?

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

#646

Post by thunderfork »

laughing_man wrote: post #366
lelandbatey wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Yes. It's in the constitution. Says it right there. Please explain how all our eyes deceive us.

You're relying on a 21st century layman's interpretation of legal language written in the 19th century. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, in broad strokes, people who are here legally.

[dead]

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

#647

Post by dalyons »

msgodel wrote: post #597
bravesoul2 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The weird technicality of the clear unambiguous text of the 14th amendment?

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

#648

Post by magicalist »

msgodel wrote: post #640
magicalist wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Sure ask for ID

Let's just turn to our national ID system...oh wait...

> But a lot less could go wrong than just letting anyone into the country en mass with no practical way to remove them.

Are you suggesting the only two options are extraordinary rendition to concentration camps in El Salvador with no recourse or instant squatters rights for all foreigners?

> You effectively don't have a country at all under that regime.

Let me offer an existence proof: gestures all around to where we're currently standing

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

#649

Post by magicalist »

msgodel wrote: post #597
bravesoul2 wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the US constitution

> weird legal technicality

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

#650

Post by refurb »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #629
refurb wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, US politics has no sense of fair play (but I haven’t seen much better in other countries I’ve lived). I would fully expect Rs to complain about it if it used against them.

And it may be overturned, but judicial decisions are based on law to date. So if either party games it to the detriment of the system, I’d assume it would be overturned.

Post reply on HN