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

811–820 of 878 posts

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

#811

Post by LorenPechtel »

esseph wrote: post #242
LorenPechtel wrote: post #161

Earlier 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.

Force is never out of the question. The illusion some want you to believe, is that it is.

Force that the individual can employ would be counterproductive. Remove any of the problematic people and the remainder get more support.

Look at how history has played out. When a government is nearly universally despised by it's people it can be overthrown by mass action, basically bloodless and sometimes with a good outcome.

However, so long as the government has a reasonable sized core of support the outcome is always bad. Violent overthrow always brings the most ruthless, not the best for the people.

Note that this does not apply to throwing out a colonial power. There are multiple examples of good outcomes from throwing out colonial powers by force.

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

#812

Post by LorenPechtel »

underlipton wrote: post #425
LorenPechtel wrote: post #161

Earlier 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?

He didn't have a role in government. He was just a despised rich guy. I was talking about the consequences of taking out any of the MAGA leaders.

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

#813

Post by goosedragons »

codeguro wrote: post #802
goosedragons wrote: post #758

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Firstly, I don't think you're engaging in good faith. I won't humor shotgun questions like yours. They're not even on topic. If you want to talk about these topics, then we do them separately and one at a time. Those are my terms. Secondly, just because I participate in a society doesn't mean I agree with how it's run or that I don't see room for improvement. That argument boils down to a Mr Gotcha comic. Here's a go…

I have zero student loans FYI. Never had any either. Nor do I have a lesbian dance theory degree. I have been lucky not to need them. I don't think you're engaging in good faith.

My questions are related to get you to realize there are things you probably use every day funded through taxes, that there are members of society that don't use those things or benefit from them but still pay for them.

People shouldn't be bound to debt because the second they legally turn 18 they get roped into financial matters they absolutely don't have the experience to fully comprehend. Nor are they fortune tellers that can tell if the in demand degree they are starting now will be still be in 4 years. Other debt can be discharged through bankruptcy. Yet, not student loans. Why are other bad investments treated differently?

Not everyone graduates high school either, yet we bare the costs of the personal investments of everyone that does. Education is both personal and an investment in society.

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

#814

Post by anonymars »

firesteelrain wrote: post #763
anonymars wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, now what happens when different courts rule on this differently?

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

#815

Post by firesteelrain »

anonymars wrote: post #814
firesteelrain wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizenship is national not at state level

Sure, now what happens when different courts rule on this differently?

Eventually it will reach the Supreme Court if it is appealed.

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

#816

Post by nobody9999 »

firesteelrain wrote: post #778
nobody9999 wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 con…

Not excusing bad executive orders. The remedy should come through the right constitutional channels: lawsuits, appeals, congressional action. The concern I raised is about courts going beyond their own limits to impose broad fixes when the real solution lies with Congress or SCOTUS.

You misunderstand the situation.

The SCOTUS ruling is about Preliminary Injunctions[0], which aren't remedies and they aren't permanent.

They serve to prevent harm while litigation progresses. This isn't something new, nor (until very recently) has it been very controversial.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injunction#Preliminary_injunct...

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

#817

Post by int_19h »

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #594
int_19h wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, so long as it's legal to have guns, but they are disproportionally distributed along political lines, it makes sense to try to counterbalance that. As it is, with gun ownership leaning firmly right, Trump has a massive number of armed paramilitaries that he could lean on. In any large-scale suppression of political dissent, those would be the people breaking your door at night, not uniformed feds (there s…

If for no other reason than to disabuse right wingers of the notion, as much as possible, that the left wing isn't armed. Which FWIW I think left-wingers are actually quite a bit more armed than the ammosexuals would presume.

There's more of us than conventional wisdom would have you believe, but the disparity is still very large.

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

#818

Post by bombcar »

jimt1234 wrote: post #318
redczar wrote: post #52

According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction? This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizensh…

> Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. That's pre-2025 thinking. Now, in 2025, there are no clear cut rights, other than, maybe, gun ownership.

Babies of non citizens born in the USA will be issued a Colt .45 and immediately deported.

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

#820

Post by anonymars »

firesteelrain wrote: post #815
anonymars wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, now what happens when different courts rule on this differently?

Eventually it will reach the Supreme Court if it is appealed.

And what about right now (or rather, after the thirty day stay expires)?
Post reply on HN