US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

Re:US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Tr... by Almondsetat on Friday June 27, 2025 @05:08PM (#44400254)

Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later. So by the same logic, this also should go away since it means any judge anywhere at any time can basically sediment history with their opinion

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Tr... by tzs on Friday June 27, 2025 @06:13PM (#44400763)

> Any judge in the country based on their own subjective politics can also create a precedent by ruling a certain way, and that single precedent might be used even a hundred years later.

District courts do not create precedent. Precedent comes from appellate courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Tr... by wnoise on Friday June 27, 2025 @08:30PM (#44401487)

They do not create binding precedent. They can create so-called persuasive precedent -- something other courts (and the same district in subsequent opinions) can and do cite when they don't disagree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Tr... by williamdclt on Friday June 27, 2025 @05:10PM (#44400275)

Many people do think this should go away yes. Common law VS statutory law is a constant debate

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Tr... by Almondsetat on Friday June 27, 2025 @05:18PM (#44400325)

Arguing for or against common law wasn't the point (personally I'm not a fan of it). The point is that the same reasoning calls for the abolition of common law, so GP should take that into consideration

[ Parent | on HN ]