Hacker News Reader

Comment by chriscrisby | Hacker News Reader

It’s ridiculous that any President (whether he’s from your favorite team or not) has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous. There will always be biased judges who will only rule to obstruct.

View on HN

Those 300 judges are only a temporary check. They get to say 'hold on, we're going to put this on pause while we make sure it's constitutional'. The 9 people that determine what are legal can then unpause that pause at any time if it is not based on sound thought.

Do you feel that temporary checks (that can be easily reversed) to ensure the government is behaving in a constitutional way are ridiculous?

And the final check today but the Supreme Court said those judges were wrong and don't get to do that anymore.

And they are wrong to do so. Right now a child born in one district in the U.S. will have birthright citizenship while children in every other district won’t. This is an inherently stupid state of affairs.

> has to appease 300+ judges is ridiculous

They don't, they appeal straight up to the 9 judges that they actually have to appease

If you don't do a bunch of illegal shit that violates people's rights, you don't end up in court as much. It's not that hard to figure out.

And one guy gets to decide what's legal?

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

- Marbury vs Madison, 1803

"judicial department", not one person.

When that one person, who is part of the judicial branch and operating within its jurisdiction, has a trial placed in front of them? Yes. That's literally their job.

The quote is from a landmark case that established the judiciary as being the ultimate arbiters of the interpretation of the laws that have been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive.

What was issued was a temporary restriction from implementing the executive order until the matter is decided. No one issued an order declaring the executive order illegal.

Yes, this is literally the entire job description of a judge: to "judge" if someone broke the law. Details on what judges have jurisdiction over differ (in some countries they can't rule on constitutional matters), but this is basically how it works everywhere. You have appeals processes and whatnot to deal with mistakes. This is civics 101 separation of powers stuff.

You mean like the President? The President of the United States of America whom is deciding that parts of our constitution, our founding legal document isn't actually legally binding?

An injunction is not a judgment. It is temporary. A new rule or law is passed. It might be unconstitutional or otherwise not enforceable. Until this can be sorted out sometimes the law/rule is blocked until it is sorted out. Since the law/rule was not in place before the suit it is sometimes ok to temporarily block the rule until it’s legality can be determined. One goes by the principle of causing least harm.

It causes the least harm to block the birthright executive order until it’s legality can be determined. Therefore it should be blocked nationwide.

So why didn’t it happen to such extent before?

It absolutely did. The Biden administration was hit with so many nationwide injunctions that they also requested that the SC limit them.

Limiting and doing away with them aren't the same thing.

I'd love to see higher requirements for issuing them, and an expedited appeals process to review them. I'd like to see protections against judge shopping (as endorsed by both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/11/judge-shopping-texas...) We know SCOTUS can move very fast when they feel like it.

trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28

You are incorrect.

>trump estimation so far: 81-103 biden estimation: 14-28 >You are incorrect.

You are clearly partisan. The GP says nothing about the number, but is instead the impact.

You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

> You should also consider normalizing the number of injunctions to the number of executive orders per term.

That paints an even more stark picture for the Trump administration.

Two reasons I'd guess: Trump has signed as many EOs as biden did in his entire presidency already [1]. Presumably when your executive order contradicts existing law you're more likely to be hit by an injunction.

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com