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

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:40 PM UTC

unsnap_biceps wrote: post #584

goodluckchuck wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal injunctions are superfluous. If the law says the government cannot do X, then who is a judge to command that the government not do X? That’s the legislature’s job. Judges have no authority to create rules saying people shall and shall not do certain things. That’s called passing a law. Similarly, when a party violates an injunction, who is the Judge to enforce his command? If it within a case or controversy…

So the purpose of the judiciary branch is to interpret the laws. If a judge rules that the government is violating the law, you want the government to continue to be allowed to violate the law until the legislature convenes a hearing and rules and then what? The judiciary branch was able to rule on punishment for violating the rules, fines and jail time and what not. You would push all that to the legislature as well…

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:48 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #732

nobody9999 wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 You do realize that the underlying case which SCOTUS limited the scope of preliminary injunctions relates to an Executive Order which directly contravenes the 14th Amendment : All persons born or naturalize…

My original comment was not defending any attempt to strip citizenship from those born in the US under the 14th Amendment. No executive order can override the Constitution. My point was narrower: when people bring up “due process” it’s important to recognize that not all persons receive the same level of due process in every context. Courts have long held that undocumented individuals and particularly those subject t…

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:53 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #731

sterlind wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not exactly Non-citizens in removal proceedings get civil hearings, with fewer procedural protection. Expedited removal allows certain undocumented immigrants to be deported without ever seeing a judge, unless they claim asylum or prove long-term presence. Courts have upheld that due process is contextual. It is not “one-size-fits-all” So yes, undocumented immigrants have a constitutional floor of protections but not…

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 12:59 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #708

paulryanrogers wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by anonymars » Sat, Jun 28, 2025, 1:11 PM UTC

speakfreely wrote: post #630

greeneggs wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt anyone would dispute that public benefits flow disproportionately to those 72 million households for obvious reasons. I would dispute it. One of the main public benefits, if not the main benefit, is protection of property rights. Those with the most property disproportionately take advantage of this protection. Are you deliberately confusing taxes with federal income tax?

Yes, you can twist public benefits to mean whatever you want. The commonly accepted definition, also the first result on Google, reads "Public benefits are forms of assistance provided by the government to individuals and families, often based on need, to help with various aspects of life, such as food, housing, healthcare, and financial stability. These benefits are typically funded through taxpayer dollars and aim…