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

701–710 of 878 posts

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

#701

Post by nobody9999 »

magicalist wrote: post #687
nobody9999 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

>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

And where did I say otherwise? The amendment process is what it is. Removing birthright citizenship via the amendment process is unlikely in the extreme.

As for me (An American), I think birthright citizenship is a good thing for the US.

How long it's been in the Constitution is irrelevant. It's the supreme law of the land which can only be changed via an arduous (and rightly so) process.

Petitioning "to change laws" isn't ludicrous at all. In fact, that's also enshrined in the Constitution, and for much longer than birthright citizenship.

As to whether or not one might be successful with such petitioning to modify the constitution to remove/redefine birthright citizenship is another thing altogether.

If folks want to spend their time and energy on such a likely fool's errand, they should have at it IMNSHO.

While I don't think the 14th amendment should be changed, I don't have anything to say about whether others should be allowed to advocate for such a change -- as that's the right (via the First Amendment) of all folks in the US to advocate for all kinds of stuff.

And I have just as much right to be vocal in my opposition to such changes.

As such, despite how much you might disagree (I certainly do), please don't advocate for silencing others -- because if they can be silenced, so can you, or me.

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

#702

Post by aspenmayer »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #682
magicalist wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

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

The Supreme Court decides whether to take a given case once it is brought.

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

#703

Post by firesteelrain »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #683
firesteelrain wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are referring to illegal aliens as citizens. They are persons under the law, not citizens.

Constitution does not provide for identical due process between illegal aliens and citizens.

Since expedited removal is authorized under 8 U.S. Code § 1225(b)(1), Courts have held up limited due process for those that not fully admitted or who can’t prove longstanding presence.

Then, you have entry fiction doctrine where those at the border are treated as if they have not entered the US under the law.

Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) held that an immigrant stopped at the border had limited due process rights.

Finally, because of the Plenary Ppwer Doctrine, immigration is considered a sovereign function of the federal government and Congress and the executive have broad authority over who may enter and remain in the US

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

#704

Post by laughing_man »

scarface_74 wrote: post #476
laughing_man wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am sure you would love that same standard to apply to the second amendment

Why are you trying to change the subject?

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

#705

Post by laughing_man »

kelnos wrote: post #544
laughing_man wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies. In theory it's just an injunction, but the reality is this kind of stuff takes forever to get hashed out in the courts, and Trump will be well out of office before it gets settled. I have no problem with SCOTUS injunctions, but there are too many district courts for this to work. The way things were heading the pre…

> The system simply cannot work if any district judge anywhere can veto the president's policies. Except that it's been working just fine that way since before I was born, so, empirically, you're wrong. > the president was going to be forced to start ignoring injunctions [...] The Roberts court had to make this ruling for the government to function. So basically you're saying their way to legitimize Trump ignoring co…

It used to work because District court justices used to operate within the limits of their constitutional authority. For the most part. National injunctions are a relatively new thing, and certainly the volume of injunctions from such a small number of justices is unique to the second Trump administration.

I am legitimizing Trump ignoring national preliminary injunctions by district court judges, yes. These judges have broken the system.

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

#706

Post by laughing_man »

dalyons wrote: post #628
laughing_man wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The president has to protect the powers of his office, and when the courts overstep he doesn't have an obligation to give them deference.

Are the courts overstepping or is he just issuing blatantly illegal orders?

The courts are definitely overstepping. Note that I'm not arguing against injunctions by the higher courts. The issue is district court judges don't have jurisdiction outside their of their district and should not be trying to issue nationwide injunctions.

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

#707

Post by laughing_man »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #497
laughing_man wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proceeding with the assumption the government would lose in court, which is not the case in the vast majority of these injunctions.

Isn't a full and proper court case required to decide what you have just proclaimed outright?

Yes. Yes it is. Which is why district court judges should not be issuing nationwide injunctions.

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

#708

Post by firesteelrain »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #673
firesteelrain wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s exactly how constitutional challenges have always worked. In our system, different circuits can interpret federal law differently until SCOTUS resolves the split. It’s not ideal, but it’s how precedent gets built. Nationwide injunctions didn’t “force” consolidation. Often, they often blocked it. We need to follow the process as designed. This ruling restores pressure to actually appeal and get clarity at the a…

What if the executive prefers not to appeal their losses because they see a patch work as better than a permanent nationwide loss? Because that seems to be exactly their strategy here.

As I have been saying, courts aren’t not the only avenue to resolve. So what if their strategy is to not appeal? Find another way. Vote, change immigration law, apply political pressure, demand change through democratic means

But certainly don’t use one course of action

Finally injunctions were not envisioned by the Founders. Foreign concept along with circuit court. Only fairly recent

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

#709

Post by laughing_man »

convolvatron wrote: post #421
laughing_man wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're proceeding with the assumption the government would lose in court, which is not the case in the vast majority of these injunctions.

not a lawyer, but I believe the process involves (a) deciding if there is a case at all to be argued, which is this case there clearly is, and (b) weighing the harm of letting the government send US citizens to Sudan or life in prison in El Salvador vs the harm that would be caused by preventing the government from doing that while the case is adjudicated - which seems to be nonexistent.

That last point is where we disagree. It takes many years for a case to wend its way through the courts. We're looking at a world where a relative handful of lower court justices can issue injunctions one after the other until it's impossible for the president to do his job.

There's only one court that has the authority to issue nationwide injunctions, and that's the Supreme Court.

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

#710

Post by laughing_man »

lelandbatey wrote: post #685
laughing_man wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Do foreign nationals who entered the United States illegal owe allegiance to the US?
Post reply on HN