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

751–760 of 878 posts

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

#751

Post by firesteelrain »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #743
firesteelrain wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My point is that everyone's natural born citizenship is irrelevant if the executive can act so quickly (or against defendants so poor or so ill informed) that the means to dispute deportation are unavailable in practice

Got it

All I am advocating for is better safeguards that Congress must pass not throwaway the entire structure by allowing local injunctions.

Understandably people are upset but point the anger at the right branch. Executive is operating within its legal parameters and the legislative branch needs to operate within theirs. Congress needs to provide better safeguards

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

#752

Post by firesteelrain »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #747
firesteelrain wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

SCOTUS has been packed, voting districts gerrymandered, the national guard has been deployed against protesters, journalists are being shot with rubber bullets and threatened with legal action, and elected representatives are being charged with trumped up crimes. The other avenues are also being obstructed. And Republicans certainly didn't mind nation wide injunctions when they were used to block much of Biden's agen…

I hear your frustration, and I don’t want to dismiss it. We should push to fix some of those things

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

#753

Post by jfengel »

tiahura wrote: post #138
jfengel wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what it does. The President simply isn't accountable. I would not have thought that this is what the Constitution says, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. That's not in the Constitution, either, but they've appropriated that job for two centuries, so we let them get away with it. The "it's not illegal if the President does it" part…

Incorrect. Congress has a multitude of means to check the president.

They really only have one, and it has never been used successfully.

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

#754

Post by xtiansimon »

cyanmagenta wrote: post #479
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…

That was a concern noted by the dissent. That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

> “…the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions.”

I recently learned my company’s Handbook has a passage which says I cannot participate in a class action lawsuit against the company. Sure, they can _just say_ I can’t eat green M&Ms, but what’s the twist?

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

#755

Post by anonymars »

firesteelrain wrote: post #521
anonymars wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294

Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up

So, in the meantime then:

> So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.

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

#756

Post by IAmGraydon »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #323
insane_dreamer wrote: post #65

Federal judges' can't block EOs indefinitely. The WH can appeal to a circuit court, and so on up to the Supreme Court. But it does prevent the Admin from implementing an unconstitutional EO while they wait to be challenged in all states/districts. I'm not particularly happy about nationwide injunctions, but this is much worse if you have a president who is not shy to "break the law now and fight it in court later". A…

> If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will. They're 100% coming for Obergfell and it's clear now how. They'll arrest a legal US citizen who has naturalized citizenship from illegal parents, born in a state that received an injunction but residing in a state that has not. The representative of that person will say that they by being a citizen in the other state, they must be respected as a…

Sorry just to clarify - you think they are going to cite and overturn a case about the legalization of same-sex marriage in their witch hunt of illegal immigrants?

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

#757

Post by agensaequivocum »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #666
agensaequivocum wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Partisan organizations are running to judges late on Friday nights, "randomly" getting judges who issue a TRO before the government even is informed of the lawsuit let alone respond. We are talking about blocking the executive from action before any argument is made in the merits. That's not at all consistent with co-equal branches. If they kept this up, Trump would rightly echo Andrew Jackson "Well, John Marshall ha…

The answer to judge shopping isn't making the president a king.

He's not but the constitution vests him with all executive power. This is broad. It's also a co-equal branch. The inferior courts don't even need to exist. Congress can dissolve them at any time. It's a gross violation of the separation of powers for a district court to enjoin executive action.

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

#758

Post by goosedragons »

codeguro wrote: post #734
DarknessFalls wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This administration does not really care about the rule of law. It cares to some degree about public perception. The timing of this ruling is about revoking birthright citizenship, which is a huge Constitutional trampling. There were opportunities four years ago for the SC to step in and they refused to intercede. For example, why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgi…

>why didn't they rule in favor of executive authority when President Biden he tried to forgive student loan debt and a Federal Judge in Texas deemed it "unlawful"? Because it is unlawful. Student loan forgiveness is not an entitlement. College isn’t an entitlement. These are the facts. Moreover, college is a privilege, and it’s a choice, and at its core it is an investment into your future. Having the government forg…

Are you against public school in general? Should the childless be forced to pay? Are you against public roads? Should the car-less be forced to pay? Are you against firefighters? Should those not currently involved in a fire be forced to pay?

I guarantee somebody else has paid for something they haven't used that you have. We're a society. Part of that is sharing costs. Big reason so much is so fucked up right now is because we're doing a bad job of it.

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

#759

Post by _zagj »

theptip wrote: post #581
diogocp wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no loophole. Defendants in the 5th circuit can appeal to the Supreme Court. That is one of the main roles of the Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits.

In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again? The 9th has nothing to do with an immigration hearing in the 5th, the individual’s personal history is irrelevant here. Matter of Rahman, 20 I&N Dec. 480 (BIA 1992) seems to cover this. (IANAL)

Because it conflicts with the holding in another circuit, called a "circuit split," which is one of the most common causes of the Supreme Court choosing to hear a case. The Supreme Court doesn't want forum shopping.

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

#760

Post by agensaequivocum »

firesteelrain wrote: post #621
agensaequivocum wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does take them months or years when they don't care to enforce something. Multiple times they've refused to reinstate a preliminary injection in "assault" weapon bans because it's inappropriate to get involved at a preliminary stage. Then we get a final judgment well we really need "more percolation first." But when it comes to other issues like transgender mutilation surgeries, abortion, or Trump they'll happily…

Courts are not the only remedy Petition to change laws, vote, protest, write news articles, start a podcast, donate to causes or org’s you believe in, etc Use the process and framework that is provided

Sure there are plenty of great 2a orgs and great progress has been made in the right to carry space as more than half the states are now permitless carry when 30 years ago half the states were either may issue or no issue.

The point is the Democratic run states refuse to follow the constitution when it comes to the 2a. The courts especially the 9th twist the Supreme Court precedent and outright lie to uphold every garbage gun control law California passes. SCOTUS just doesn't care enough about the 2a to correct the blatant middle finger lower courts keep giving them.

Post reply on HN