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

861–870 of 878 posts

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

#861

Post by nrb »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #809
nrb wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per the policy directive of https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot... citizenship has been taken away from anyone born from parents of targeted classes as of Jan 20, 2025 with a 30-day order for all executive departments and agencies to enact the policy.

What you say and what the link says are completely different things. Nice emotional manipulation on your end referring to illegal immigrants as "targeted classes". Maybe don't break the law and immigrate legally.

I welcome you to point out the discrepancies if I am mistaken.

Targeted classes is a common term in the context of regulations where certain bodies receive a change in protections or restrictions. This executive order is trying to overrule a law with a policy so it felt appropriate. No manipulation was intended by using a technical term.

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

#862

Post by [deleted] »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #396
bdangubic wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)

You don’t have to defend yourself from the entire US government, just the government representation who shows up and decides to violate laws or your rights (and your life is in imminent danger). “Better to be judged by twelve vs. carried by six.” Otherwise, you’re default dead. Odds are better in jail on US soil than an El Salvadorian prison. I agree full out civil war against the US military on US soil is a differen…

[deleted]

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

#863

Post by mike50 »

ndiddy wrote: post #368
bdangubic wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unless you can arm yourself with a nuke, “arming” yourself for a fight against US government is laughable :)

Worked pretty well for the Vietnamese and the Afghans

The Vietnamese were being backed by the Soviet Union and China. The Taliban has piles of soviet era equipment and US military and intelligence training.

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

#864

Post by majormajor »

stickfigure wrote: post #457
majormajor wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the…

Hitler's SA (the brownshirts) weren't government officials, nor were Mussolini's blackshirts. Nor are the Proud Boys. There are many more modern examples of pro-government militias in Venezuela and the mid-east. You never know who's going to deputize themselves as "law enforcement", with the quiet encouragement and plausible deniability of the ruling political party. Guns are unquestionably useful defensive tools aga…

Listing a bunch of examples of militias causing problems is not changing my opinions on the dangers of having easily-accessible arms...

(This is also something I was alluding to with "issuing pardons for the rebels on your side" which is already happening, of course.)

And so then it just falls back to "the good guys just need to shoot the fascist armed militia members before they shoot the good guys" which is... difficult to guarantee...

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

#865

Post by majormajor »

int_19h wrote: post #413
majormajor wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using private weapons to fight against the government to protect your rights is a laughably-low-probability-of-success scenario. Even when insurrections or rebellions succeed they often end up... not so great. We have seen what you get when you have an armed populace. Highly armed cops. Highly armed federal agents. Military equipment for civilian forces. All necessary in order to compete in the arms race against the…

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…

You're gonna have better luck leaving the country before the civil war than you are shooting the people trying to break into your house in that scenario. There are at least a couple million "regular" US soldiers + feds; if we're worried about millions more private citizens on top of that, what exactly is the gameplan to win in any meaningful sense regardless?

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

#866

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #799
Scipio_Afri wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's two main claims that you see when it comes to the ACLU losing its way. The first one is that they don't really do second amendment cases. Some of the motivation is genuinely the conscience of the people who work there, but the much much bigger factor, because the ACLU takes on lots of conscience testing cases, is that the NRA is extremely well funded and will fight the case anyway. There's already an organiza…

[deleted]

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

#867

Post by sorcerer-mar »

majormajor wrote: post #864
stickfigure wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hitler's SA (the brownshirts) weren't government officials, nor were Mussolini's blackshirts. Nor are the Proud Boys. There are many more modern examples of pro-government militias in Venezuela and the mid-east. You never know who's going to deputize themselves as "law enforcement", with the quiet encouragement and plausible deniability of the ruling political party. Guns are unquestionably useful defensive tools aga…

Listing a bunch of examples of militias causing problems is not changing my opinions on the dangers of having easily-accessible arms... (This is also something I was alluding to with "issuing pardons for the rebels on your side" which is already happening, of course.) And so then it just falls back to "the good guys just need to shoot the fascist armed militia members before they shoot the good guys" which is... diff…

Who said anything about guarantees?

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

#868

Post by sorcerer-mar »

majormajor wrote: post #865
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…

You're gonna have better luck leaving the country before the civil war than you are shooting the people trying to break into your house in that scenario. There are at least a couple million "regular" US soldiers + feds; if we're worried about millions more private citizens on top of that, what exactly is the gameplan to win in any meaningful sense regardless?

The gameplan is for people to quickly realize that it's not just a "rape and pillage whatever you want" type of mission they're embarking on. The vast majority of people have little appetite for actual resistance (as your comments reveal), and so a little resistance will very likely go a long way.

There are far more people willing to defend their homes than there are people willing to get shot in the face breaking into someone's home.

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

#869

Post by insane_dreamer »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #756
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're in Nevada you won't get citizenship, but in Oregon you will. They're 100% coming for Obergfell and it's clear now how. They'll arrest a legal US citizen who has naturalized citizenship from illegal parents, born in a state that received an injunction but residing in a state that has not. The representative of that person will say that they by being a citizen in the other state, they must be respected as a…

Sorry just to clarify - you think they are going to cite and overturn a case about the legalization of same-sex marriage in their witch hunt of illegal immigrants?

I think the connection that's being made is that if they can declare that your citizenship-by-birth, legal in Oregon, is not legal in Nebraska (making you effectively stateless there), that they can say the same thing for your same-sex marriage certificate issued in Oregon, is not recognized in Nebraska.

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

#870

Post by coderatlarge »

coderatlarge wrote: post #853
coderatlarge wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

see the following [1]doj enforcement priority on stripping citizenship ; i guess conceivably a citizen could be in a situation of having to prove that some ancestor didn’t lie on their naturalization application [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/30/nx-s1-5445398/denaturalizatio...

and here comes denaturalization:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-test-red-line-denatur...

Post reply on HN