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

761–770 of 878 posts

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

#761

Post by leoqa »

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…

I agree with this take. People tend to frame college loans as predatory but the majority of the forgiveness was federal loans.

There are already amnesty programs for teachers, social workers, etc. The solution to bail out individuals for their investments is not good policy.

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

#762

Post by _zagj »

dayofthedaleks wrote: post #129

This is functionally equivalent to the Enabling Act of 1933. [0] [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

The "Enabling Act" described in the linked article allowed Hitler to legislate unilaterally. This decision concerns judicial review of executive orders, and every presidential executive order is still only valid if it derives its authority from a valid act of Congress, a treaty entered into, or a self-executing provision of the Constitution itself.

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

#763

Post by firesteelrain »

anonymars wrote: post #755
firesteelrain wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citizenship is national not at state level

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

#764

Post by rayiner »

anigbrowl wrote: post #684
rayiner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> The “protests” recently were tepid and nearly all elderly liberals with nothing better to do. They set records for size and you know it. What do you mean by 'tepid', because they didn't riot? Would you acknowledge them as more valid if they had rioted, or declared angry tones that they had to be put down immediately? > A big chunk of the country really wants mass deportations, and for the most part, folks in the br…

> They set records for size and you know it. What do you mean by 'tepid', because they didn't riot?

According to whom? I'm in the D.C. metro area, and the protests are far less noticeable than the 2017 pink hat protests or the 2020 riots. They organized a bunch of small protests all around the country so more people maybe participated, but the intensity is low even in DC.

> Absolute BS. No matter what they do, you'll cook up some reasons to delegitimitze it. But I guess you have to, the moment you cease being useful to the GOP you'll become a target.

I’m just observing. The anti-Trump resistance I know in real life have retreated literally and metaphorically to a bubble in BlueSky. I was at a conference recently, steeling myself to deal with PMCs complaining about Trump, and nobody said anything. People were in a great mood. The vibe shift is real. And your second point is genuinely conspiratorial and fantastical thinking.

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

#765

Post by nobody9999 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #751
paulryanrogers wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Executive is operating within its legal parameters

Huh? Since when is issuing executive orders that attempt to contravene the plain language of the US Constitution, something that's clearly illegal, "operating within [the executive branch's] legal parameters"?

Whether Congress is doing its job or not (I'd argue they're not representing their constituents in any meaningful way -- hell, I wanted to vote against my congressman since I was moved into his district in the last two elections, but he ran unopposed) is irrelevant to a blatantly illegal assault on US citizens by executive order.

There are plenty of things to take Congress to task for, but executive orders (you know, from the executive branch) aren't one of them.

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

#766

Post by rayiner »

Retric wrote: post #631
rayiner wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump did DOGE to get Elon on board. He wasn’t even talking about the budget deficit until then. And it wasn’t on his platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform . In retrospect, the Tea Party’s popularity was probably because it was anti-Obama and his brand of government managerialism, not because of promises to balance the budget. Any actual fiscal responsibility would be met with massive backlash and will neve…

> He wasn’t even talking about the budget deficit until then His platform required it. #6 “LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!” needs smaller government. So it’s the same old platform with a different emphasis. Or did you think he was suggesting extreme taxes on companies or wealthy people? Deficit spending runs into #3 “END INFLATION”, and he explicitly stated to “PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WIT…

> His platform required it... Or did you think he was suggesting extreme taxes on companies or wealthy people?

No, I figured he was proposing deficit spending, just like every GOP President in my lifetime. Trump's platform is like that of every third world politician that promises voters everything they want without anything they don't, and America is a third world country now.

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

#767

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #766
Retric wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He wasn’t even talking about the budget deficit until then His platform required it. #6 “LARGE TAX CUTS FOR WORKERS, AND NO TAX ON TIPS!” needs smaller government. So it’s the same old platform with a different emphasis. Or did you think he was suggesting extreme taxes on companies or wealthy people? Deficit spending runs into #3 “END INFLATION”, and he explicitly stated to “PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE WIT…

> His platform required it... Or did you think he was suggesting extreme taxes on companies or wealthy people? No, I figured he was proposing deficit spending, just like every GOP President in my lifetime. Trump's platform is like that of every third world politician that promises voters everything they want without anything they don't, and America is a third world country now.

Ahh you simply misunderstood then. Heavy deficit spending eventually = inflation, ie why it spiked during COVID and why inflation was higher at the end of Trump’s first presidency than the start of his second.

He’s been surprisingly consistent in at least make token efforts to do what he said he was aiming to do.

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

#768

Post by Scipio_Afri »

aaron695 wrote: post #665
Spivak wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually have some insider info on this. While it sounds like in theory all you have to do is take your existing lawsuit and add the additional step on certifying your class, that option isn't available for the vast majority of legal challenges. In the history of the ACLU they have had less than ten cases where they could have been converted into a class action. As a real life example the "trans women being moved t…

> ACLU Lets not forget the ACLU has burnt 100 years of goodwill to become the bad guys in the past decade. They went from from amazing freedom fighters to lets hope their organization gets destroyed because of the awful humans they let in internally in recent times. I understand there is a split with an old guard still fighting to get it back, but they will lose. > "the cruelty is the point" read that EO Helps if you…

Mind providing a link to more info about your first claim about the ACLU?

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

#769

Post by paulryanrogers »

firesteelrain wrote: post #744
paulryanrogers wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can’t be circumventing the process at the lower levels by forum shopping So fix forum shopping by making the president a king?

Come on. Nobody is making the president a king just because we expect lawsuits to follow the normal path through the courts. Wanting judges to stay in their lane isn’t authoritarian, it’s basic constitutional structure.

He can sign unconstitutional EOs, and the only folks who can get relief are those who have a lawyer on call, or a class action, or can pull enough strings to get their case appealed to the court which he clearly has in his back pocket.

(In addition to other fun things like immunity from criminal prosecution forever, cannot even be investigated in most cases, and cannot be disqualified from office after inciting a riot to stop the transfer of power.)

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

#770

Post by [deleted] »

rayiner wrote: post #764
anigbrowl wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The “protests” recently were tepid and nearly all elderly liberals with nothing better to do. They set records for size and you know it. What do you mean by 'tepid', because they didn't riot? Would you acknowledge them as more valid if they had rioted, or declared angry tones that they had to be put down immediately? > A big chunk of the country really wants mass deportations, and for the most part, folks in the br…

> They set records for size and you know it. What do you mean by 'tepid', because they didn't riot? According to whom? I'm in the D.C. metro area, and the protests are far less noticeable than the 2017 pink hat protests or the 2020 riots. They organized a bunch of small protests all around the country so more people maybe participated, but the intensity is low even in DC. > Absolute BS. No matter what they do, you'll…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN