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

831–840 of 878 posts

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

#831

Post by wtfwhateven »

hackyhacky wrote: post #547
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…

> Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. No it isn't, and please stop lying. > 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 govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC ru…

Their responses were unnerving and it's honestly frightening that anyone can be so deluded. They've lied multiple times about the contents of the ruling, they've repeatedly ignored your arguments and hallucinated you making arguments you never even implied, and all of that wrapped up in a transparent facade of civility. It is twisted and vile.

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

#832

Post by codeguro »

buttercraft wrote: post #781
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…

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

Becoming a doctor, lawyer, scientist, or engineer is a personal choice, and a personal investment. You don’t get to socialize the costs and privatize the gains for your personal benefit in the name of “society”. If you need to take out a loan, borrow against your future, not everyone else’s. You’ll be making more money later so it’s not like you can’t afford it anyways.

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

#833

Post by esseph »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #811
esseph wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

A single individual with a couple of drones and some bad intentions in the modern era could easily do billions in damage in one afternoon.

The world is always in flux.

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

#835

Post by Thorrez »

fzeroracer wrote: post #109
throwaway48476 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most law, and most law courts deal with is federal law, not constitutional law. A lot of the most contentious recent court issues could be addressed with federal laws. It's just congress is lazy and doesn't want to go on record.

And where is federal law derived from? What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?

>And where is federal law derived from?

It's written by the legislature.

>What does the court weigh against federal law when considering if it's enforceable or not?

When ruling whether it's enforceable or not, they weight it against the constitution, and against itself.

When ruling how to enforce it, they interpret it primarily against itself.

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

#836

Post by consumer451 »

goalieca wrote: post #419
consumer451 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have any interest in taking a non-hysterical reaction... What a lovely way to frame a statement and put down people who hold a multitude of opinions that you do not share.

You can not share his opinion but do not have to be hysterical like the talking heads in media.

As it turns out, the user appears to have been referring to Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

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

#837

Post by coderatlarge »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #534
ggm wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oftentimes hard to model this from other nations. Here in Australia we have pretty well understood applicability of federal law everywhere, but when the states started enacting changes in abortion law, voluntary assisted dying, decriminalisation of recreational drugs, it all got a bit messy. Especially since we have non-state territories where enacting laws means .. conditional to the federal government with lower ba…

In my opinion, birthright citizenship is undesirable. Like you said, it's fairly unique to America and largely exists for historical reasons. However, there is no just world where you can revoke citizenship from existing Americans. Especially under the vague terms they used. Furthermore, the constitution itself is what defines it in clear language. Birthright citizenship can only be changed via constitutional amendme…

asking in a narrower context than before: what happens when an Nth generation american is forced to prove their ancestors came to the country legally under threat of being stripped of the only citizenship they’ve ever had ? i doubt most people can produce documentation reaching back several generations…

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

#838

Post by DarknessFalls »

leoqa wrote: post #761
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…

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.

Federal loans are serviced by unscrupulous middle men like Nelnet. Before I understood a thing about federal interest rates and that, at the time, they were quite high historically, they convinced me to "lock in" the interest rate with loan consolidation. Seemed smart, but they were acting in bad faith and not long after, we had the market collapse of 2007.

By the time my loans were discharged, I had fully paid the principal and was treading water on interest. Because I paid the minimums, the interest itself had risen to above the cost of the original loans based on those high interest rates I consolidated with. I would call it predatory, and as far as I'm concerned, my debt between me and the Federal government is paid for by me. Nelnet be damned.

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

#839

Post by DarknessFalls »

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 noticed that you didn't address the question of whether birthright citizenship is an entitlement, because it's kind of hard to argue with the Constitution on that point.

Secondly, something that is lawful does not need to be an entitlement. If a president can declare an air strike, costing hundreds of millions of dollars -- which I may not consent to as a taxpayer -- then he can forgive loans. The argument that the federal judge in Texas made regarding student loan forgiveness not applying to everyone could be made to PPP loan forgiveness for businesses. (I have a business but didn't receive free money.)

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

#840

Post by Izkata »

FireBeyond wrote: post #790
magicalist wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I don't think that's quite right... It sounds to me like clarification of a specific example, rather than anything to do with diplomatic immunity.

I don't like going to dictionaries for arguments, but look at "subject" adjective definition 1 here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject

> owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another

Merriam-Webster orders their dictionary "oldest known meaning first", and as I understand it the "allegiance" part of this definition is what's been forgotten about, but is what the citizenship argument is about. The first noun definition has a similar mix of meanings.

Think of it more like a kingly "these are my subjects (and not someone else's)" rather than a simple "they must obey the law because they're here".

Post reply on HN