Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only eerily not legislated
Our legislature willingly gave up its power quite a while ago.
Incorrect, one party in the legislature gave up its power
US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
721–730 of 878 posts
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
What *meaningful* action would you have people take? Remember, force is out of the question because it will provide justification for the oppression and make people more willing to accept it.
Brian Thompson's death didn't seem to have any major consequences along those lines. Targeted assassinations seem to be kosher for avoiding crackdowns. If someone were to shoot Peter Thiel in the head, do we REALLY expect to see a sudden descent into oppressive authoritarianism? Or, as with Thompson, do most people say, "Eh, he had it coming," and keep it moving?
Brian Thompson was uniquely unsympathetic. he wasn't well-known, his wife had separated from him, and nearly everyone has a personal experience of some family member being fucked over by health insurance, with UnitedHealth being especially heinous. the media really struggled to find anyone to say sincerely positive things about him. he really was the best possible target Luigi could have chosen.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#723Earlier quoted context omitted.
Less charitably, the Supreme Court has said that this president has this authority. Forgive student loans? No authority! End birthright citizenship? Well, he's the boss!
That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.
No? Both are unilateral executive orders.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#724Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump did once note an additional option. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-...
Liberals really should arm themselves before these people finally classify "disagreeing with daddy" as a mental disorder. [0] It is obviously hilarious to think the "conservatives" and "2A enthusiasts" would possibly help defend lefties' right to bear arms at this point, as they've shown themselves to be utterly devoid of actual values. People across the political spectrum have an obscene amount of faith in "can't ha…
that was in May? Jesus, every fucking month has felt like a year.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#725Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... no nationwide injunctions except from SCOTUS? Meaning the executive can just keep deporting without due process or honoring birthrights, so long as they back down for anyone with the means to challenge it. (And their lawyer is fast enough, and knows which district they were spirited off to in the middle of the night.)
The idea of a nationwide injunction was not originally envisioned. It’s newish. Only Supreme Court in a court-sense can check the Executive. Congress can also check the Executive. Illegal aliens have less due process by law.
the Constitution entitles all persons in the US to have due process, including aliens: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/r...
reversing that case law would be a bit much even for Alito, I think.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#726Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm arguing that the Constitution guarantees due process to anyone subject to US jurisdiction, and the nationwide injunctions were necessary because ICE was sweeping people off the streets and quickly shipping them to different countries intentionally and explicitly in contravention of due process. If every single case must be prosecuted individually, those who have been illegally robbed of due process will already b…
No that's completely insane. If that were actually what the constitution meant than the federal government needs to be dissolved because it's completely useless. Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.
> Obviously we do not need to litigate undocumented immigrants before deporting them.
why not just shoot them? seems less cruel than deporting them to an active war zone in Libya or South Sudan, or incarcerating them for life in CECOT where they'll be raped and tortured before being murdered.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
There's two types of person I could be arguing with: one who has just misunderstood the ruling by being credulous of the discourse around it; and one who has misunderstood it by having a partial understanding of the legal context. My goal was the address the former by explaining the judgement. A person of the latter kind would take much more of my time than I can give. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to be helpful by adding explanatory context.
If a person has read the ruling and insists that it places the person of the president, privately, above the law -- then I'd need several hours to explain all the relevant issues. A comment thread isn't a viable place to conduct a seminar on constitutional law, nor exegesis of a SC legal opinion to that depth.
I had hoped I could just explain that the congress and the courts have immunities, and this is just confirming that the office of the president has exactly the same kind of immunity. And that this immunity does not transfer privately to the holder of that office, just as a senator cannot murder someone.
There are deep technical issues surrounding the status of the attorney general which muddies the waters, because this is not a constitutional position, and the constitution does not foresee any one but congress holding the president (as president) to legal account. In that sense, it places the president (as president, not as a private person) outside congress' modern established processes for federal law -- but that's what the constitution actually says. But this process has never worked anyway: the AG is an executive position the president already controls, so it has never made sense to imagine they are answerable to the AG.
The SC confirms the plain text of the constitution which is the office of the president is one of the three branches of government which is held to legal account only by impeachment by congress. The office holder, eg., trump, can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, when he isnt the president.
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#728Earlier 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.
> Those are only "citizens" because of a weird legal technicality that's a holdover from the civil war era. Indeed, if your ancestors didn't cross the Bering Land Bridge at least 10K years ago then you're clearly not a native, and should be deported back to your continent of origin ASAP. And if you don't like it then I hope your lawyer can catch up to the trucks hauling you to a distant, deportation-happy district wh…
[flagged]
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#729Earlier quoted context omitted.
It didn't though. It was really really bad for them.
Well, for a country that's faced attempts to be "tamed" by three superpowers over 200 years, Afghanistan's holding up pretty well. It exists and independent! By the way, it crossed my mind that all the superpowers that tried their luck are no longer superpowers. Britain's just a weak shadow of itself, the USSR completely collapsed. What fate awaits the USA?
same
Re: US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I read it, and I disagree with your analysis. Sotomayor makes some decent points in favor of nationwide injunctions when she deigns to engage in legal arguments, but the case against them is very compelling. The textual case is pretty much completely against them, and if you prefer a consequentialist analysis their drawbacks are well documented across the political spectrum. I will say Barrett's time as a professo…
I think your analysis is likely influenced by factors that are external to the actual opinion/dissent. But that’s fairly common.
Physician, heal thyself