| |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent. | | |
| ▲ | blibble 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the US system | | |
| ▲ | Freedom2 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference is that the US system is given by God, as commonly said by many Americans over the decades. And what power is greater than God? | | |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All systems have weaknesses, but the utter criminal farce the US system has been betrayed to be yields a situation where zero Americans should be gloating about their constitution or values any more. Oh look, Trump just declared a new, 10% global tariff because lol laws. Congress is busted. There are essentially zero real laws for the plutocrat class. |
| |
| ▲ | petcat 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That was the fastest Supreme Court ruling in UK history though... Similarly in the US, Watergate (Nixon impeachment) took only 16 days, and Bush v. Gore (contested election) took just 30 days to reach a Supreme Court judgement. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kingofmen 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long. The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. The lower courts issued several such injunctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs... "On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days." "Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions." | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | There were presumably lower court judges who didn't issue injunctions, or what are people objecting to? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The appeals level stayed the injunctions temporarily, probably expecting a quick emergency docket ruling rather than a long delay. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win… If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. (Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.) > Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. Do we? The law here was a mess. Prediction markets didn't have the outcome at anything like a certainty and the relevant stocks are up on the decision, implying it wasn't already priced in -- and both of those are with the benefit of the transcripts once the case was already at the Supreme Court to feel out how the Justices were leaning, which the intermediary appellate court wouldn't have had at the time. > Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. It's not a thing anyone should be banking on in any case. And if that was actually their expectation then they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the relevant stocks are up on the decision Predictable result, unpredictable timing. > they could just as easily have not stayed the injunction and just let the Supreme Court do it if they were inclined to Hindsight is, as always, 20/20. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Predictable result, unpredictable timing. That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. The sure things go 99:1. > Hindsight is, as always, 20/20. It's not a matter of knowing which docket would be used. Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That wouldn't explain the prediction markets thinking the administration had a double digit chance of winning. I am not a believer in the accuracy of prediction markets. > Why stay the injunction at all if you think the Supreme Court is going to immediately reverse you? They didn't think that. They thought SCOTUS would back them up faster. Back in November: https://fortune.com/2025/11/07/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-i... "That suggests a potentially lopsided 7-2 vote against Trump, who appointed Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh during his first term." We got 6-3. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/international-trade/trump-tari... "Though he normally aligns with Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch may be more likely to vote against Trump’s tariffs than Kavanaugh is, according to Prelogar. “It might actually be the chief, Barrett and Gorsuch who are in play,” she said." https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/publications/oral-arguments... "During the argument, several Justices expressed skepticism about the IEEPA expanding the President’s powers to encompass the ability to set tariffs." This was the widespread conclusion back then; that the justices were clearly skeptical and that the government was struggling to figure out an effective argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not doing something you could have done is frequently less of a choice and more of a lack of bandwidth to simultaneously consider everything which is happening at the same time. The vast majority of cases don't make it onto the emergency docket. |
|
| |
| ▲ | parineum 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The fast track is congress clarifying their own shit. Courts are slow, it's a feature not a bug. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | SCOTUS can move much quicker than this when they want to. And have fairly regularly to benefit this administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_pre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump was vacated within days. "On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States. The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day." "Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention… The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg. That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action." "On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate. On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders…" TL;DR: Trump signs executive order on March 14. Judge puts it on hold on March 15. Admin appeals on March 28. SCOTUS intervenes by April 7. | | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control. The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan. |
|
|
|
