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

691–700 of 878 posts

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

#691

Post by hayst4ck »

zdragnar wrote: post #689
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/…

Did this centralize power or distribute power?

Is the constitution more protected or less protected?

Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time?

Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that only became problematic in the context of an anti-constitution anti-law president... and I just don't understand. I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.

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

#692

Post by [deleted] »

dalyons wrote: post #647
msgodel wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#693

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

firesteelrain wrote: post #511
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see any of the "chaos" you're talking about: the examples you give are of the system working as expected.

If "working as expected" means conflicting nationwide orders from different judges, policy whiplash across states, and emergency SCOTUS intervention just to sort it all out.. then that’s exactly the kind of chaos the Court is trying to fix

Yes, that is working as designed. It is the design chosen because it is better than the alternative of hundreds of conflicting orders leaving innocent people unprotected.

This will obviously increase the number conflicting orders by several orders of magnitude, but either way: the conflicting orders are what we want to happen, because it errs on the side of caution.

The fact that some courts disagreed didn't negatively affect me at all. Where was all the "chaos" caused by courts disagreeing? "Policy whiplash"? lol. Might as well go full ridiculous and call it "policy murderdeathkill" or something, that sounds much scarier.

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

#694

Post by heylook »

hayst4ck wrote: post #691
zdragnar wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

Did this centralize power or distribute power? Is the constitution more protected or less protected? Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time? Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that only became problematic in the context of an anti-constitution anti-law president... and I just don't understand. I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is someth…

> I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend.

Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation.

One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built this company|escalated privilege|retired early] by [twisting the rules of the system|exploiting a loophole|penetration testing]", and that ethos isn't entirely that far away from "did you know you can get the laws changed just by spending $50k on a senator?" or "Twitter only needs 50 engineers as long as they're all H1-B hostages".

It really feels like what we've lost is empathy and humanity.

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

#696

Post by tmountain »

Spooky23 wrote: post #273
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…

Since we’re rendering people to El Salvador, there’s no reason some ICE bounty hunter can’t grab you in Massachusetts, and dump you in some Home Depot parking lot in the Carolinas.

Masked ice bounty hunter in an unmarked vehicle.

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

#697

Post by thoughtstheseus »

nobody9999 wrote: post #617
pedalpete wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am looking for feedback, but I don't think that is a valid argument. A single person absolutely can and should pull the fire alarm! Are you suggesting that an entire country should operate as a single building? Different districts have different laws and by-laws, and a district judge SHOULD be able to take issue with any law being passed down from on high. But should one person be able to challenge and essentially…

>Under normal circumstances, the president wouldn't be shooting the country in the foot, so I completely agree that in this instance, perhaps it is good that a district judge can do this. But if American politics starts getting played this way, I think you may see significantly more challenges in getting good laws passed. I am not saying this is a good law. Except it's not "getting" played this way. It's been this wa…

If you win in lower court you can still bring the case to the Supreme Court to create national uniformity. One of the consolidated cases for Brown vs. Board of Education won in Delaware while others lost.

That is the appropriate way to determine national uniformity in law.

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

#698

Post by DangitBobby »

mjburgess wrote: post #512
hackyhacky wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ? I'm entirely unaware of your sex. I imagine many of the hysterical people in this thread are men. How is that relevant? The fantasy that any opinion that differs from yours is based in emotional interests, whereas your opinion is objective and logical is the root of many misogynistic attacks. > Correct, the SC is supposed to resolve that. And in this judgement, they affirm that they will. Your argument is tautolo…

> This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling. Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. > they opened the door to official corruption, Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should go…

Dude, if it's in there and "explicit" just fucking cite the thing? Why are you declaring that it's obviously in there?

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

#699

Post by squigz »

heylook wrote: post #694
hayst4ck wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did this centralize power or distribute power? Is the constitution more protected or less protected? Will trump have a harder time breaking the law or an easier time? Many in this thread arguing about the legal minutiae of a system that only became problematic in the context of an anti-constitution anti-law president... and I just don't understand. I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is someth…

> I don't understand what reality you're living in where this is something to defend. Hacker news has become a much more depressing place post-Covid. Musk, Zuck, the All-In guys, Bezos, Altman. All of them role models for the people here, and all of them have gone mask-off to one degree or another in their pursuit of power and wealth and public adulation. One side of the hacker/startup coin is "look at how I [built t…

Let's not conflate hackers with startup people.

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

#700

Post by ejstronge »

cellis wrote: post #615
kelnos wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really relevant though. Being a UK citizen and breaking a UK law while on US soil (where the US doesn't have a similar law), and then seeing consequences for it when you return to the UK doesn't change anything. If a UK person is on US soil and breaks a US law, they will be prosecuted by the US. The US can choose to extradite to the UK, but that's not really relevant.

If you care to read some cases, this link is informative https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-01-23/debates/B8A... . You don’t have to be on “soil” to break these laws. The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

> The US certainly extradites loads of people from other countries who still reside there and only broke laws either “online” or through transactions involving the US

This further weakens the dishonest posture that tourists are not subject to US law

Post reply on HN