5 ms·

Bit ridiculous that this article leaves as a footnote that this rule change is illegal and likely to be struck down by the first lawsuit.

LPisGood 1y ago
I think it is kind of a footnote. Many things this administration has done are illegal and struck down by the first lawsuit but later let stand by a friendly Supreme Court.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  That's true on administrative state issues (Trump being allowed to fire people in the exec. branch). It's not clear this is a 100% guarantee for everything beyond that. (Maybe a 65% guarantee).
- justinator 1y ago
  And should be added, let stand by the Supreme Court without given a reasoning on why it stands. Just all shadow dockets. Corruption by another name. The canary is already dead.
  - fastball 1y ago
    Can you give an example?
    - justinator 1y ago
      https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2025/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-do...
      - fastball 1y ago
        I am aware of the shadow docket, I was looking for a specific example that you believe deserved more explanation than was given for an expedited stay.
        justinator 1y ago
        Please my friend, get involved and do your own research. I'm not an AI prompt.
        fastball 1y ago
        None of those seem out of line to me, that is why I ask.
        justinator 1y ago
        Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo seemed severely out of line to me. What would be out of line for you?
        fastball 1y ago
        "You can't profile people" is actually a ridiculous constraint to put on law enforcement and a massive overreach by the lower court. I don't think SCOTUS needs to explain why that is the case in detail.
        justinator 1y ago
        That's a pretty easy pov to have as white-passing, middled-aged man in tech who doesn't live in the States. But regardless, WHY did the Supreme Court overrule the lower court? We don't know? Why don't we know? That's highly unusual.
        fastball 1y ago
        If someone was murdered and the cops had some reason to believe the perp was white and spoke English natively, I'd have zero issues with being pulled in for questioning on nothing but the fact that I match those features (even though I have no priors or anything else that would otherwise indicate me a good suspect). The order was stayed because the lower court made a massive overreach they have no business making. There are many lower courts, there is only one SCOTUS. SCOTUS does not have the bandwidth to hear all the cases on the merits docket if lower courts keep overreaching. Your options are either this or somehow forcing SCOTUS to process the merits cases much faster, which people would also complain about ("justice can't be rushed!"). But of course the complaints only ever come when the decision is one you disagree with. When things are expedited in your favor, people tend to have no problem with that.
  - twothreeone 1y ago
    How is a president winning the election and then packing the SC corruption? It's not like people didn't have a choice, they did vote for the guy. Twice!
    - LPisGood 1y ago
      It’s legal corruption, but it’s still corruption. Just like gerrymandering it’s legal in America, but if it were happening in some Third World country the local news would have no qualms about calling it partisan corruption.
    - justinator 1y ago
      Wow, I didn't say either of those things are corruption, but it's telling you have changed the target of the subject I was talking about, in an attempt to manipulate the subject. Would you like to try again?
paxys 1y ago
The trump administration has not complied with any unfavorable court ruling about immigration why would they care about this one?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  They've complied with a number of unfavorable court rulings about immigration, but precisely because that's what they're supposed to do it goes much less viral.
  - paxys 1y ago
    "Yeah they're breaking laws, but why aren't you talking about the ones they are following?"
    - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
      I do! This dynamic drives it as well. A lot of people on social media are passionately convinced that "Trump can do whatever he wants" is the anti-Trump position and "Trump's power is still limited in many ways" is therefore a pro-Trump position. I never know how to engage with that perspective other than to say it doesn't sound right to me. If you're an anti-Trump person trying to figure out how to stop him from doing bad things, it seems pretty important to know that lawsuits are a useful component.
- rayiner 1y ago
  The one ruling they arguably didn’t comply with was overturned by the Supreme Court, who held the district court didn’t even have jurisdiction in the first place.
yalogin 1y ago
Interesting. Does this also require a law to be passed?
freetime2 1y ago
Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but it isn’t a footnote. It’s part of the actual article, just included near the end in the “Looking Ahead” section. If they omitted it entirely or put it in an actual footnote, then yes I agree that would be a noteworthy omission. But it feels extreme to call it ridiculous when it’s right there in the article. The other thing I’ll say is that even if this is struck down by the courts (which is not certain give the Supreme Court’s recent support for the president), that can take a while and this could still have a real impact on people. Many people thought the president imposing tariffs was unconstitutional, but as right now those tariffs are actually in effect. Companies that employ H-1B workers (and the workers themselves) will need to start planning for this immediately regardless of whether or not it is eventually struck down. The last thing I’m wondering is when you say it’s ridiculous, do you just mean sloppy reporting? Or are you implying that the author has some ulterior motive? And if the latter, what do you think that ulterior motive is?
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Not likely. It appears this rather awkward method is actually built to keep this well within the president's power
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sixothree 1y ago
Maybe they felt it would automatically be implied.

LPisGood 1y ago

I think it is kind of a footnote. Many things this administration has done are illegal and struck down by the first lawsuit but later let stand by a friendly Supreme Court.

softwaredoug 1y ago
That's true on administrative state issues (Trump being allowed to fire people in the exec. branch). It's not clear this is a 100% guarantee for everything beyond that. (Maybe a 65% guarantee).
justinator 1y ago
And should be added, let stand by the Supreme Court without given a reasoning on why it stands. Just all shadow dockets. Corruption by another name. The canary is already dead.
- fastball 1y ago
  Can you give an example?
  - justinator 1y ago
    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2025/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-do...
    - fastball 1y ago
      I am aware of the shadow docket, I was looking for a specific example that you believe deserved more explanation than was given for an expedited stay.
      - justinator 1y ago
        Please my friend, get involved and do your own research. I'm not an AI prompt.
        fastball 1y ago
        None of those seem out of line to me, that is why I ask.
        justinator 1y ago
        Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo seemed severely out of line to me. What would be out of line for you?
        fastball 1y ago
        "You can't profile people" is actually a ridiculous constraint to put on law enforcement and a massive overreach by the lower court. I don't think SCOTUS needs to explain why that is the case in detail.
        justinator 1y ago
        That's a pretty easy pov to have as white-passing, middled-aged man in tech who doesn't live in the States. But regardless, WHY did the Supreme Court overrule the lower court? We don't know? Why don't we know? That's highly unusual.
        fastball 1y ago
        If someone was murdered and the cops had some reason to believe the perp was white and spoke English natively, I'd have zero issues with being pulled in for questioning on nothing but the fact that I match those features (even though I have no priors or anything else that would otherwise indicate me a good suspect). The order was stayed because the lower court made a massive overreach they have no business making. There are many lower courts, there is only one SCOTUS. SCOTUS does not have the bandwidth to hear all the cases on the merits docket if lower courts keep overreaching. Your options are either this or somehow forcing SCOTUS to process the merits cases much faster, which people would also complain about ("justice can't be rushed!"). But of course the complaints only ever come when the decision is one you disagree with. When things are expedited in your favor, people tend to have no problem with that.
- twothreeone 1y ago
  How is a president winning the election and then packing the SC corruption? It's not like people didn't have a choice, they did vote for the guy. Twice!
  - LPisGood 1y ago
    It’s legal corruption, but it’s still corruption. Just like gerrymandering it’s legal in America, but if it were happening in some Third World country the local news would have no qualms about calling it partisan corruption.
  - justinator 1y ago
    Wow, I didn't say either of those things are corruption, but it's telling you have changed the target of the subject I was talking about, in an attempt to manipulate the subject. Would you like to try again?

paxys 1y ago

The trump administration has not complied with any unfavorable court ruling about immigration why would they care about this one?

SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
They've complied with a number of unfavorable court rulings about immigration, but precisely because that's what they're supposed to do it goes much less viral.
- paxys 1y ago
  "Yeah they're breaking laws, but why aren't you talking about the ones they are following?"
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    I do! This dynamic drives it as well. A lot of people on social media are passionately convinced that "Trump can do whatever he wants" is the anti-Trump position and "Trump's power is still limited in many ways" is therefore a pro-Trump position. I never know how to engage with that perspective other than to say it doesn't sound right to me. If you're an anti-Trump person trying to figure out how to stop him from doing bad things, it seems pretty important to know that lawsuits are a useful component.
rayiner 1y ago
The one ruling they arguably didn’t comply with was overturned by the Supreme Court, who held the district court didn’t even have jurisdiction in the first place.

yalogin 1y ago

Interesting. Does this also require a law to be passed?

freetime2 1y ago

Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but it isn’t a footnote. It’s part of the actual article, just included near the end in the “Looking Ahead” section. If they omitted it entirely or put it in an actual footnote, then yes I agree that would be a noteworthy omission. But it feels extreme to call it ridiculous when it’s right there in the article. The other thing I’ll say is that even if this is struck down by the courts (which is not certain give the Supreme Court’s recent support for the president), that can take a while and this could still have a real impact on people. Many people thought the president imposing tariffs was unconstitutional, but as right now those tariffs are actually in effect. Companies that employ H-1B workers (and the workers themselves) will need to start planning for this immediately regardless of whether or not it is eventually struck down. The last thing I’m wondering is when you say it’s ridiculous, do you just mean sloppy reporting? Or are you implying that the author has some ulterior motive? And if the latter, what do you think that ulterior motive is?

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

Not likely. It appears this rather awkward method is actually built to keep this well within the president's power

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

sixothree 1y ago

Maybe they felt it would automatically be implied.