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

651–660 of 878 posts

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

#651

Post by refurb »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #533
refurb wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. The US system has power more fragmented than most. In Europe, the Senate often doesn't wield any power (it rubber stamps anything the legislature approves). The executive is a part of the legislative. In parliamentary system, individual MPs are "whipped" into voting with the party, and can basically be pushed out of power if they don't go along with it. If the party in power has a large majority, there is nothi…

Canada is a dictatorship though most don't realize it. MPs can't tweet anything unless it's approved by the PM. You have a hundred heads speaking with one voice.

It’s an interesting system looking from the outside in.

A party with a majority in power has little to stop any legislation the party decides to pass.

The senate is mostly a rubber stamp. The courts are independent but won’t nullify legislation unless it violates the charter.

MPs can’t not vote with the party unless they want to risk their political career (or it’s a free vote - but that’s reserved for unimportant legislation.

The ruling party can pass whatever the heck they want without much concern.

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

#652

Post by magicalist »

firesteelrain wrote: post #621
agensaequivocum wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Petition to change laws

change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

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

#653

Post by nobody9999 »

delecti wrote: post #83
vharuck wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why would a lower court have more authority than an appeals court? That makes no sense. An appellate court considers the decisions of the courts below it, so it makes sense its actions would be restricted to those courts. What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another.

> What makes no sense is the newly possible situation in which an action violates the U.S. Constitution in one district but not another That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference.

>That's not new. It's called a circuit split, and generally results in the cases being combined when SCOTUS hears them to sort out the difference.

Absolutely. As it should be.

The problem here is that the SCOTUS decision under discussion here makes it less likely (perhaps quite unlikely) that the SCOTUS will even be asked to "sort out the difference."

That's because their ruling today made it clear that if you're not a named plaintiff in a suit against the government, you are not subject to/protected by any ruling on that case, unless and until, a SCOTUS ruling sorts it out.

And since the prevailing party has no standing to appeal (only the "losing" party -- party as in plaintiff/defendant, not political party), if the Executive Branch doesn't appeal, SCOTUS will never see such cases -- thus leaving the Executive branch to do literally anything with impunity outside the realm of the circuit court involved.

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

#654

Post by AngryData »

yongjik wrote: post #198
AngryData wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it's as if having your citizens armed is a bad idea, because there's very little chance it could be actually useful in a real life scenario while the society slowly slides into tyranny.

Do you think if the US populous was zero threat at all that we wouldn't be in an even worse place right now? How can you look at what the government is doing right now in the largest police state to ever exist and be like "Nah, we shouldn't be armed at all."

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

#655

Post by fzeroracer »

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]

No, there is no other reading here. The 14th amendment is incredibly clear about the exact text and meaning in this scenario. I don't think people need to entertain opinions otherwise from those that either refuse to read the amendment or choose to ignore what it plainly says.

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

#656

Post by magicalist »

FireBeyond wrote: post #608
magicalist wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. Meanwhile: > The proposition before us, I…

> yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but yes:

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-...

> Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

(page is substantially unchanged since the last administration)

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

#657

Post by andrekandre »

shams93 wrote: post #131
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>class action What you describe is voting We’re in this mess because people are not interested enough, educated enough, or engaged enough politically to make their position explicit to drive the direction of legislation and executive action. Citizens of The United States have every tool available to to work together to shape their communities. The reality is the overwhelming majority do not do that, and you can come…

There is also the damage done by the Supreme Court ending the Voting Rights Act, had the act been in place in 2024, Kamalah would have won by a landslide. Millions of minority voters were targeted for disenfranchisement in 2024.

  > There is also the damage done by the Supreme Court ending the Voting Rights Act
that is true, but

  > Kamalah would have won by a landslide
im not so sure. after a great start she sudenly veered off and campaigned by appealing to disaffected republicans (eg. touring with liz cheney, militaristic posturing (in her words 'the most leathal') military etc) and ignoring/downplaying the gaza issue which affected voting trends [0] in the battleground states just enough to loose there... also the prolonged conflict in ukraine didn't help things with many voters either (eg. lie or not he said he'd end the wars immediately)

and aside from some bread-crumbs like paid leave, she was very silent in economic issues that affected many minorities...

her campaign was in la-la land [1]

[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/kama...

[1] https://readsludge.com/2024/11/18/the-corporate-consultants-...

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

#658

Post by vannevar »

dpe82 wrote: post #426
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your premise is false, exceeding is not the limit, because the limit is at the behest of any of the judges; given a judge exceeds their rational, then they exceed their rational ability to limit the executive branches power

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.

I'm not sure it's true that recent presidents have relied more on EOs---at least the numbers suggest that recent presidents have actually relied less on EOs than many of their predecessors (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-ex...). Now, it may be the case that the scope of EOs has grown, so that they implement bigger policy initiatives. I'd be curious if anyone has done that analysis. It might also be that rising partisanship has led to more exaggerated reactions to EOs by the opposition, making it seem like a bigger problem than it actually is.

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

#659

Post by goodluckchuck »

magicalist wrote: post #641
goodluckchuck wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

It’s in the quote:

> The Government has no incentive to file a petition here either, because the outcome of such an appeal would be preordained. The Government recognizes as much, which is why its emergency applications challenged only the scope of the preliminary injunctions

She’s saying the outcome is already known (ie they would lose) and the government knows they would lose, and the place they would have lost would have been right here (in front of me in the Supreme Court).

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

#660

Post by fzeroracer »

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.

What process? If you're a lawyer then detail the exact process for us.
Post reply on HN