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

681–690 of 878 posts

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

#681

Post by throwaway48476 »

fzeroracer wrote: post #104
throwaway48476 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts only have so much power because congress is dysfunctional and kicks every issue to the courts so they don't have to be accountable to voters.

The Supreme Court has literally been usurping power from Congress by refusing to read the laws they've passed as written, kicking them back or neutering them knowing that Congress is locked down. And in this case they're refusing to do their actual job, which is defending the constitutional foundation of our country.

Judicial activism is certainly a problem as well. Stayed courts are the worst for this. California and Washington have initiatives but the courts just ignore them.

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

#682

Post by rufus_foreman »

magicalist wrote: post #627
rufus_foreman wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court.

You don't like the outcome so you're shitting on the process.

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

#683

Post by paulryanrogers »

firesteelrain wrote: post #550
vkou wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice, for a start, if it actually followed the laws its supposed to enforce. Could you find me the one that lets the president's office strip citizenship from people?

I never said anything about stripping citizenship from people. Can you clarify?

If you can be deported quickly, without due process to dispute false claims you're not a citizen, then you may wake up in a foreign prison without any recourse.

Those of us with white skin and no accent may find that a silly prospect. Citizens who are different are already facing this risk.

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

#684

Post by anigbrowl »

rayiner wrote: post #181
Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that for the most part average americans agree with the elite. The results of the study are driven by the fact that when elites and average americans disagree, the politicians tend to side with the elites. The case when everyone agrees doesn’t tell you anything. It’s only when people disagree that you can find who has actual power and in this case the general public has effectively zero actual meaningful power d…

[flagged]

> The “protests” recently were tepid and nearly all elderly liberals with nothing better to do.

They set records for size and you know it. What do you mean by 'tepid', because they didn't riot? Would you acknowledge them as more valid if they had rioted, or declared angry tones that they had to be put down immediately?

> A big chunk of the country really wants mass deportations, and for the most part, folks in the broader left don’t care much to oppose it

Absolute BS. No matter what they do, you'll cook up some reasons to delegitimitze it. But I guess you have to, the moment you cease being useful to the GOP you'll become a target.

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

#685

Post by lelandbatey »

laughing_man wrote: post #520
lelandbatey wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither you nor that heritage foundation (an incredibly biased and anti-immagrant organization) have read the supreme court decision which I linked to. To save you time, I will quote the relevant commentary by the justice: > [T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children…

What do you suppose "in the allegiance and under the protection of the country" means?

I would assume that is in reference to the other quoted conditions, such as:

- children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers

- enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory

As in both such cases, the described would NOT be "in the allegiance and under the protection of the country".

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

#686

Post by paulryanrogers »

firesteelrain wrote: post #577
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 needs to work it’s way through the lower courts.. circuit, district, etc That’s the months and years part We can’t be circumventing the process at the lower levels by forum shopping

> We can’t be circumventing the process at the lower levels by forum shopping

So fix forum shopping by making the president a king?

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

#687

Post by magicalist »

nobody9999 wrote: post #669
magicalist wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Petition to change laws change what law, lol, it's in the constitution.

>> Petition to change laws >change what law, lol, it's in the constitution. To be fair, the Constitution is the law of the land. And it can be changed. You just need 2/3 of each house of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to agree that such a change is a good idea.[0] It's hard to do (and rightly so), but absolutely doable -- in fact, we've done it 28 times already. [0] Meaning any such change would r…

> And it can be changed

Again, change what? Birthright citizenship has been in the constitution plain as day for 157 years.

"Petition to change laws" is a ludicrous suggestion of a remedy when it's already in the US constitution

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

#688

Post by paulryanrogers »

slater wrote: post #97
themaninthedark wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that the child would be registered with the embassy that the parents are citizens of and there would be an application for a non-resident visa that would be fast tracked. Greenland, Finland, Norway and Sweden all have no concept of Jus Soli and as far as I know, kids born to non-residents aren't being deported from the hospital. >Moreover, there is literally no mechanism to prove that your parents are…

>I would think a birth certificate would work.... Remember when the whole entirety of the US right-wing lost their goddamned minds for a year or so re: a sitting president's birth certificate?

Well, having a POC as president was a pretty shocking circumstance in their minds. A means to quickly deport him was too exciting to overlook.

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

#689

Post by zdragnar »

hayst4ck wrote: post #437

By accepting the frame that it is federal judges and not the law that is blocking trump, it means that we are analyzing based on a frame of Trump vs Judges rather than Trump vs Law . If you accept that framing, you accept many of that frames implications without even consciously processing them. This is one of the ways that consent is manufactured. This ruling is stating that federal judges cannot rule that the law i…

The supreme court didn't rule on the legal merits of the three lawsuits, the ruled on the scope of the authority of the judges of the lower courts.

As for interpretation: of course it is subjective. That's literally what they do in cases of federal and constitutional law: statutory interpretation. There's even named schools of thought for how it should be done, purposivism and textualism. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_interpretation

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

#690

Post by paulryanrogers »

russdill wrote: post #432
nine_zeros wrote: post #8

Now, the administration will keep doing illegal things, and every individual affected will have to file lawsuits to invalidate the illegal thing - after the damage is already done - because nothing is preventing the government from doing illegal things.

I don't think this applies to just the president.

Not everyone can sign (often unconstitutional) EO's which will be enforced at gun point, except against those with the means to take the executive to court.
Post reply on HN