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

821–830 of 878 posts

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

#821

Post by vkou »

firesteelrain wrote: post #780
paulryanrogers wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress could budget and pass a law to fix things. It’s not up to the Executive and Legislative Branch. The executive swears to uphold the constitution. Not write EOs that clearly violate it, then strategically drop appeals when they lose, so as to undermine the constitution for everyone without the means to dispute their case.

If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down. My point isn’t that the executive can act with impunity. It is that the judiciary must do so within its own constitutional limits. If the executive is dropping appeals to avoid nationwide precedent, that’s a serious problem, but the long-term fix isn’t local injunctions See my point?

> If an EO clearly violates it, it should be challenged and struck down

Fortunately a thousand years of common law have figured out how to deal with this sort of thing, while those challenges are ongoing. It's called an injunction. It's issued when there's a strong case for an EO violating it, and is done when the violation, if allowed unabated, will cause irreparable harm to the the victims.

The legal process hinges on preventing irreparable harm while a case is being litigated. If it didn't, absolutely horrific things could be done to you under the color of law, and the people doing them would be incentivized to drag the cases out for as long as possible.

This is textbook, black-on-white, criminality from the executive.

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

#822

Post by dragonwriter »

grogers wrote: post #473
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…

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

> IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent?

"Precedent" can include both binding authority and persuasive authority. Any ruling (and lots of things which aren't rulings, like scholarly treatises), can be persuasive precedent, but trial court decisions are not binding precedent, even in the district of the court that issued them.

Only appellate court decisions are binding precedent, and only (basically) on courts subordinate to court making the decision.

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

#823

Post by dragonwriter »

nwallin wrote: post #499
grogers wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

It's only binding in that district. So here's how the loophole works. There are 12 courts of appeals. You (ICE) does a bad thing. (renditions a US citizen to an El Salvador concentration camp without due process) You get sued, appeal it to that court of appeals. Let's say it's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, let's say you lose. You take the L and move on. You never do the bad thing in the 9th circuit again: that de…

> It's only binding in that district.

No, district court decisions are not binding precedent, not even in the district.

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

#824

Post by dragonwriter »

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)

> In this scenario the precedent has already been set in the 5th, why would the Supreme Court hear it again?

A circuit split on an issue is one of the factors that traditionally weighs in favor of the Supreme Court hearing it, in the interests of uniformity of the law.

If the Supreme Court likes the 5th Circuit rule, they take the case it make it the rule, period.

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

#825

Post by boston_clone »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #515
grogers wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but isn't any ruling by even a lower court precedent? Like if I sue the government for thing A and a lower court rules in my favor, doesn't that make the next plaintiff's case for sueing the government for thing A much easier? All it seems to do is make everything much less efficient.

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…

> In terms of efficiency, it’s more efficient.

Truly, fascism and autocracy are more efficient than checks and balances; not everything must be made “efficient”.

Do we chastise an oak or redwood for taking its time?

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

#826

Post by acoustics »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #682
magicalist wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The majority seems too trusting that the government will appeal its losses > You seem too skeptical that the Supreme Court wouldn't see right through that. See right through what? If it's never brought to the Supreme Court, it's never brought to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decides what gets brought to the Supreme Court. You don't like the outcome so you're shitting on the process.

There is no statute authorizing the Justices to pluck an un-appealed district-court judgment out of the system on their own initiative.

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

#827

Post by wtfwhateven »

DangitBobby wrote: post #698
mjburgess wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling. Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. > they opened the door to official corruption, Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should go…

Dude, if it's in there and "explicit" just fucking cite the thing? Why are you declaring that it's obviously in there?

Because he's lying

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

#828

Post by wtfwhateven »

mjburgess wrote: post #486
hackyhacky wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your entire understanding of the SC here, under trump, has been completely distorted by emotionally-disregulating media narratives designed for those purposes. Ah yes, the classic misogynist attack: I can't possibly understand the law because I'm too emotional . If only I were logical like you. > Today's result also does not prevent state-wide injunctions, indeed, that's what they court has basically suggested. Yes…

> misogynist ? I'm entirely unaware of your sex. I imagine many of the hysterical people in this thread are men. > That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work. Correct, the SC is supposed to resolve that. And in this judgement, they affirm that they will. > What's the point of the changing the statute If the SC wanted to make bribery constitutionally permissible, they would not have made the ruling statutory.…

>No, this is illegal and prosecutable.

This is a lie.

The ruling made such a case unprosecutable as it made any possible evidence in such a case inadmissable. You've been told this multiple times but gloss over it for some reason.

The majority went out of there way to make the president unprosecutable. Not only did they make "official" (whether or not something is an official act is something this very same majority will decide!) acts unprosecutable they ensured that even if immunity doesn't apply then NONE of the evidence is admissible.

The simple and irrefutable fact is that the ruling allows the president to have a political opponent killed and be wholly immune to any possible prosecution.

For example:

- President has political opponent killed by any means (ask CIA to do it or whatever), or accepts a bribe from someone in return for sending weaponry or anything else

- President's term ends

- Former president is charged for his obviously criminal acts

- Former president's lawyers argue their actions were "official acts"

- Prosecutor appeals

- Gets all the way to the supreme court

- Supreme court decides that the crimes commited were official acts because the president did them (and thus must be official)

or if the court tries to look marginally less ridiculous and corrupt:

- Supreme court decides the crimes themselves weren't official acts but any and all communication related to the acts themselves were official acts and are this inadmissable (making the prosecution impossible)

MAYBE the 'justices' have integrity at that point and don't rule that way... too bad. The president can just have pre-emptively have disloyal 'justices' killed and personally appoint loyalists... and have them rule the way he wants. It's all an official act, after all.

Can you show me what part of the ruling prevents the above?

Whether or not you believe the above is "unrealistic" or "fearmongering" is irrelevant as this is what the majority's absurd opinion allows for. It's simply unjustifiable, unconstitutional, ridiculous and there's no excuse for it.

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

#829

Post by wtfwhateven »

mjburgess wrote: post #727
DangitBobby wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, if it's in there and "explicit" just fucking cite the thing? Why are you declaring that it's obviously in there?

There's two types of person I could be arguing with: one who has just misunderstood the ruling by being credulous of the discourse around it; and one who has misunderstood it by having a partial understanding of the legal context. My goal was the address the former by explaining the judgement. A person of the latter kind would take much more of my time than I can give. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to…

>can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office,

How is this meant to happen if all the evidence for such crimes are inadmissible due to the ruling?

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

#830

Post by codeguro »

goosedragons wrote: post #813
codeguro wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

People spending money that is not theirs on services they themselves will not receive will care about neither the quality nor the cost of those services. But this at its core is exactly what the government bureaucrats do. If you listened at all to great economists like Milton Friedman then it’d be obvious to you why government spending inevitably leads to lower quality and more expensive services than those provided by a free market through the private sector. Moreover, this spending is done by force, meaning the government is violating your individual autonomy (and the autonomy of every individual they tax to fund this program) by removing your right to decide how you spend your money on services you need. We as a society don’t generally view force as a legitimating factor. We view consent as a legitimating factor, and these goods and services are just that; goods and services. And, like every other good and service, the free market is a solution to provide more variety of them at a variety of costs including ones affordable to you. There is a reason people choose to bring their kids to private school and many people who would otherwise choose to do so cannot because their income is taxed to fund public schooling.

The lesbian dance theory degree example is obviously an analogy to illustrate a bad investment and get you to understand the outrage of having to pay for someone else’s personal (bad) investments. 18 year olds are legally adults in the US and as adults they have the right to make decisions about their futures. But their inexperience does not absolve them of their responsibilities. And it’s not like they have to get a degree fresh out of high school either. They can choose to wait and watch the real world for a few years until they decide what they want to do with their lives. Stop infantilizing them.

If you’re asking me my opinion on discharging debts, I disagree with the concept in principle for the same reason as the original occupy wall street protesters. Businesses that fail, even if they are big, should not be bailed out at the taxpayers expense. Bad investments should fail; that is the risk you wager when you agreed to play that game. You don’t get to turn around and privatize the gains and socialize the losses. We live in a society.

Post reply on HN