Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court's Immigration Problem

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Supreme Court's Immigration Problem

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/21/opini...nig/index.html

    'President Donald Trump has placed the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program squarely in his anti-immigration crosshairs. Ever since Trump took the oath of office, DACA has been living on borrowed time, which may soon run out -- with potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of young people.'
    'In September 2017, Trump tried to end DACA, which protects from deportation undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children with their parents. But a series of decisions from federal trial and appellate courts put Trump's efforts on hold and allowed DACA to continue temporarily.'

    'Do not be lulled by the temporary maintenance of the status quo. The skies are darkening for DACA. The case heads to the Supreme Court in its upcoming term, and this week the Justice Department
    formally backed
    Trump's effort to end the program. The Justice Department surprised exactly nobody by siding with Trump, arguing that DACA "at best" is "legally questionable" and "at worst, it is illegal." '

    'How the Supreme Court will rule is uncertain, but watch for a 4-4 split along the Court's ideological fault lines. Expect the four conservative justices, all appointed by Republicans (Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) to support the Trump administration's effort to end DACA, and the four liberal justices, all appointed by Democrats (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elana Kagan) to vote against it.'
    'In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts will likely cast the swing vote, as he has done in recent blockbuster rulings, including some pertaining to immigration. Roberts, a nominee of President George W. Bush, has stalwart conservative credentials, but over time he has become more unpredictable and has sided with the Court's liberal bloc in high-profile cases. He stunned many by casting a decisive vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in 2012, and in the most recent term, Roberts sided with four liberal justices to block the Trump administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the census in the absence of a legitimate explanation of reasons from the White House.'

    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

  • #2
    The executive branch does not have the authority to write laws, only enforce the laws written by the legislative branch. I don't see how the SCOTUS can have a split decision.

    The Constitution. is pretty clear on this.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

    Comment


    • #3
      What are you talking about? Perhaps if you reread the article two or three more times you might understand it better.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
        The executive branch does not have the authority to write laws, only enforce the laws written by the legislative branch. I don't see how the SCOTUS can have a split decision.

        The Constitution. is pretty clear on this.
        Exactly.
        An EO, even one of BO's, can be overturned by a subsequent president., They aren't binding and they aren't laws.

        It should be a 9-0 decision, but you never know.
        I think the anti-trump crowd should be careful what they wish for because if the SCOTUS were to find that BO's EOs are permanent in nature then Trump's EOs will be every bit as permanent.

        If they want to embrace a president making law through EO, they might not like how it works when the other side is in office.
        Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

        Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          What are you talking about? Perhaps if you reread the article two or three more times you might understand it better.
          The Constitution is clear on the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, that is what I am talking about.

          CNN attempting to twist the powers listed in the Constitution into "The Supreme Court's Immigration Problem" doesn't change the fact. Maybe CNN or a poster here can show how DACA was constitutional...... ????

          Perhaps if you reread the Constitution two or three more times you might understand it better.
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #6
            Address the post and not the poster.
            Further sniping (that includes statements addressed to other posters ) will result in futher sanctions.
            Again if you're using the word "you" in a personal manner, you're NOT addressing the post.
            Learn this simple concept please.
            Thank you
            ACG Staff

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

              Exactly.
              An EO, even one of BO's, can be overturned by a subsequent president., They aren't binding and they aren't laws.

              It should be a 9-0 decision, but you never know.
              I think the anti-trump crowd should be careful what they wish for because if the SCOTUS were to find that BO's EOs are permanent in nature then Trump's EOs will be every bit as permanent.

              If they want to embrace a president making law through EO, they might not like how it works when the other side is in office.
              I agree with this. Obama made law by executive order. DACA is a major change to immigration law and created a whole class of people who were given immigration status without legal founding. That Trump tossed it out is perfectly reasonable. Emotional appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.

              But, I can expect at a minimum Sotomayor and Ginsburg to rule in favor of keeping DACA simply because they like it. They won't argue for a legal reason because they really have none. "It's for the children!" has long been an irrelevant appeal of politicians.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                I agree with this. Obama made law by executive order. DACA is a major change to immigration law and created a whole class of people who were given immigration status without legal founding. That Trump tossed it out is perfectly reasonable. Emotional appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.

                But, I can expect at a minimum Sotomayor and Ginsburg to rule in favor of keeping DACA simply because they like it. They won't argue for a legal reason because they really have none. "It's for the children!" has long been an irrelevant appeal of politicians.
                Those were the 2 I was thinking of when I said "you never know".
                They can always be relied upon to vote a particular way.

                Of course, if they vote against trump's effort to touch DACA, then they are also voting in favor of the concept that Trump's EOs have the power of law.
                Or they are just partisan hacks.
                There really is no upside.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                  Those were the 2 I was thinking of when I said "you never know".
                  They can always be relied upon to vote a particular way.

                  Of course, if they vote against trump's effort to touch DACA, then they are also voting in favor of the concept that Trump's EOs have the power of law.
                  Or they are just partisan hacks.
                  There really is no upside.
                  They're just partisan hacks.



                  Essentially, what she says in that video is the US needs a Progressive Leftist version of a constitution that is choc-a-block with "Rights" that aren't Rights. For example, all of these include some form of "You have a Right to an education."

                  That sounds great, but in practice it isn't a Right. You are limited on how much education you have a Right to, often times very seriously limited. The questions that cripple that concept include:

                  How much education are you entitled to?
                  How good must that education be?
                  Are there age limits on this?
                  Who will provide that education?
                  How much is to be spent on education?

                  By the time you get done getting down to specifics, education is no longer a Right, it's more of a privilege that society offers. The analogy I would offer is "You have a Right to an automobile." There's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two when written into law.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In post 1 it has been claimed that Roberts had stalwart conservative credentials, but this is not so as half of the Democratic senators approved his nomination as Chief Justice .It is very unlikely that someone as Carl Levin would vote for someone with stalwart conservative credentials .And, still he voted for Roberts .

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X