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

781–790 of 878 posts

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

#781

Post by buttercraft »

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…

> college is a privilege

We, as a society, need doctors, lawyers, scientists, and engineers. College is a requirement for that.

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

#782

Post by ben_w »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #531
magicalist wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about the constitution, he said he has a mandate!

Every country has a constitution, usually it's ignored. The value of a piece of paper is only as much as the people that comprise the system that upholds it. If you completely ignore the people and just whine at them about constitution this and that they're going to ignore it and rip it up. Society is also a compact and if the supermajority wants something they're going to get it.

The Republicans in the USA don't have the support required to count as a supermajority:

"""Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed in one of two ways: a two-thirds supermajority votes of each body of United States Congress or a convention called by Congress on application of two-thirds (currently 34) of the states. Once proposed, the amendment must be ratified by three-quarters (currently 38) of the states (either through the state legislatures, or ratification conventions, whichever "mode of ratification" Congress selects)."""

- the wikipedia page on Supermajority, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#United_States

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

#783

Post by Retric »

rayiner wrote: post #776
Retric wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re conflating two different points: what’s true in reality, and what voters thought they were voting for. Trump’s platform is aimed at people who don’t understand that deficit spending leads to inflation. (It didn’t under Reagan or Bush.) Or, alternatively, they thought there was trillions of dollars of fat in the budget that could be cut without affecting services they want. It’s like how Democrats think you can…

Things are kept vague so people can create their own narratives. But in 2024 he continued to used terms like “Drain the Swamp” that directly refer to downsizing government. So your argument is basically he had no intention of carrying though when he’s doing exactly what he said he would. Perhaps you may want to rethink what exactly you are basing that assumption on.

As to Democrats it’s not a hand wavy standpoint. Historically, taxing companies and wealthy represented a much larger fraction of the overall tax burden. ~Half of federal revenue came from companies in the 1950’s today it’s vastly lower. Changing that means lower taxes on yourself and or much lower deficits.

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

#784

Post by cyanmagenta »

xtiansimon wrote: post #754
cyanmagenta wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The context here is suing the government for unconstitutional executive orders, so wouldn’t be an issue.

But yeah, ever since the Supreme Court blessed those provisions in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc (2018), companies have been adding them to employee agreements.

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

#785

Post by hollerith »

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…

PMC == professional managerial class

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

#786

Post by computerthings »

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…

[dead]

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

#787

Post by Whoppertime »

tmountain wrote: post #718
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the same Supreme Court that granted the president immunity from any and all criminal charges as long they were made under the umbrella of the presidency. None of this is normal, and these are radical interpretations of the law explicitly designed to grant the president king like powers and reform the government into an authoritarian regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit... Sovereign Immunity is an idea that has a long precedence. The Supreme Court was arguing that bad behaviour by the President is resolved through impeachment, and once they are out of office they are subject to criminal charges.

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

#789

Post by Whoppertime »

goosedragons wrote: post #758
codeguro wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I am against rich people putting their kids in private school on credit then having that debt "forgiven" and paid for by people who sent their kids to public school. I am sure those kids are getting a benefit from private education. That doesn't mean I should bail them out and pay their bill

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

#790

Post by FireBeyond »

magicalist wrote: post #656
FireBeyond wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?

Not entirely sure what you're asking, but yes: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-... > Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” (page is substantially unchanged since the last administration)

I stand corrected. My understanding of diplomatic immunity was that it didn't extend to the families of diplomats or consular employees (but looking at the WP page, it does for diplomatic families, but not consular employees or their families, or is a lot more limited, rather).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_Uni...

Post reply on HN