Comment by immibis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by immibis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Uh, that was the past term. Have you also paid attention to the current term?

The current supreme court (which was also the supreme court past term) has a very consistent pattern of taking away power from Democrats and granting power to Republicans. Since the president is a Republican, they've been consistently granting power to the president; since the last president was a Democrat, they were consistently taking away his power. You can watch the pattern continue in 2029.

They ruled the president has unlimited power to do anything at all, without punishment, if it can be justified as a presidential duty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States - during the last term, but in relation to Trump.

Very soon after Trump took power, they ruled that courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Trump's orders: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf?...

Notice all of these sorts of decisions are always 6-3: the 6 conservative justices forming a voting bloc in support of expanding Trump's power (specifically Trump, not just any president), and all 3 non-conservative ones voting against.

> "Very soon after Trump took power, they ruled that courts cannot challenge the constitutionality of Trump's orders"

No, specifically they said district judges couldn't write rulings that applied to other districts.

Your local city council would hit the same limitation if they attempted to write laws for other cities.

Which, is a mixed bag. Judge shopping was a huge problem from universal injunctions. But at the same time, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for?

If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches?

Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch.

Sometimes, there should be things that should have avenues to be quickly stricken down before more parties fall victim to them

This seems like a very ominous-sounding way of saying that Democrats have been losing in the Supreme Court lately and Republicans have been winning.

By Republicans you mean the party hijacked by an authoritarian cult of personality.

You say "Stalin took over as dictator of USSR" and I say "This seems like a very ominous-sounding way of saying that Trotsky lost an election." That response would make sense if you'd said it about Arsenal vs Manchester, but when it's Stalin vs Trotsky it has real consequences, like the Holodomor, and shouldn't be trivialized.

This framing torments me. Political parties "win" and "lose"... It's the quality of life of our parents, children, neighbors, and alike that waxes and wanes by the judgment of these far-removed decision makers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com