Want to ban nationwide injunctions against student debt relief? Sure, I can agree with that. Want to ban nationwide injunctions against ACA enforcement or some other similar type thing? I have no problem either way.
Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.
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.
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.
According to Justice Barrett a child born tomorrow in one district in the United States will not have U.S. citizenship but a child born in another one will. Will ICE deport the “noncitizens” born in one district while being prevented from doing so in districts that happen to have a judge that issues an injunction?
This ruling is idiotic even if you are generally opposed to nationwide injunctions. Birthright citizenship is a fundamental and clear cut right. Any attempts to overturn that must meet a high burden of justification. Temporarily suspending such attempts until the matter can firmly be decided causes the least amount of harm and should be allowed.
Before today’s ruling nationwide injunctions were granted. Not sure how you can now claim “that’s how the court system works” when nationwide injunctions were fine before today’s ruling.
A President can now issue blatantly unconstitutional executive orders and the burden for obtaining relief will rest on each individual person (or small class of people). Prior to today rules/laws that caused harm could be temporarily prevented from being enforced while the matter is litigated. Now parties that will be harmed are much more likely to be harmed before the matter is resolved. This is a sad state of affairs.
If the next President issues an order confiscating guns from people the champions of today’s ruling will want nationwide relief while the matter is litigated.
If someone is going to be deported they can file a case and stop the deportation.
Also, just because you did pay attention doesn’t mean it’s not idiotic. The patchwork of interpretations and requirement to sue is a guarantee of unequal treatment under the law, which is exactly what autocrats want.
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.
Flying used to be for the ultra rich, people’d gather around them to listen to their plane ride story. The poor in this case are not the poorest but poor comparatively
That's a great question. To the extent that increasing the budget caused more smart people to get PhDs and more of them were able to contribute to the scientific effort (as well as help bigtech develop ML and contribute back to science), I think it was a good idea.
It might have been better executed- somehow matching the increased supply of grad students with increase supply of faculty positions, or perhaps just growing it more slowly to let the inequalities equilibrate a bit more. But ultimately, I think it was a good thing, in that it increased the total science being done.
Yeah, NIH had two guys (Lauer and Collins) that tried to do all kinds of things to spread out funding to junior researchers and increase the number of jobs. The entrenched investigators fought them every step of the way and Trump has since run both off.
That there are other things that are possibly harmful to the environment does not negate the author’s points. You sound overly defensive. Given the number of rescue cats and dogs I think it’s safe to assume that there are a lot of irresponsible pet owners.
I’ve been on HN since the beginning. I’m on my 12th or so username. Like you I don’t have a Reddit, Facebook, etc. account. Social Media is a plague on society.
Banning a nationwide injunction against birthright citizenship is inherently different. It’s a fundamental constitutional right we are talking about. Banning birthright citizenship should not be allowed to be enforced until SCOTIS decides the matter.