Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-22-2020, 04:39 AM
Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,748

Slate: Sotomayor implies Supreme Court conservatives are pro-Trump...


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...as-dissent.amp

Although this might “just” be the effect of appointing justices for their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to any particular loyalty to Trump specifically.
  #2  
Old 02-22-2020, 07:49 AM
QuickSilver's Avatar
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,656
There is a litmus test case that will be heard shortly by SCOTUS with respect to Trump's financial records and Deutsche Bank.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #3  
Old 02-22-2020, 08:50 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,079
most justices follow the beliefs of Prez who appointed them. Except for Souter who turned out to be pretty liberal after being picked by Bush Sr. That is why you hear "no more Souters"
  #4  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:03 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
I disagree. The outcome of these cases are pro-Trump, but the end result is that it allows any presidential administration to enact its own policy.

Judge shopping is easy. If the Supreme Court allows these types of executive decisions to be struck down while they are litigated, in the future no president will be able to do anything.
  #5  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:10 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,079
the problem with Souter was he had very little paper trail. Nobody is going to pick a guy like that again from either party.
  #6  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:18 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,255
Notice that the Republicans on the Supreme Court didn't even bother to explain their decision? If there were a legitimate reason, they would have.
  #7  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:21 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. The outcome of these cases are pro-Trump, but the end result is that it allows any presidential administration to enact its own policy.

Judge shopping is easy. If the Supreme Court allows these types of executive decisions to be struck down while they are litigated, in the future no president will be able to do anything.
Since your governance has been stampeding in the other direction for awhile, maybe curtailing Presidential power isn't such a bad thing.
  #8  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:35 AM
Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Notice that the Republicans on the Supreme Court didn't even bother to explain their decision? If there were a legitimate reason, they would have.
Are you aware of many (any?) instances where the Court has provided an explanation for its grant or denial of such an application? I've read many dissents and more than a few concurrences, but I don't remember the last time I saw a majority opinion in such a situation.

It must be curious that the Court almost never has a "legitimate reason" for its actions (even when they're apparently unanimous).
  #9  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:41 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. The outcome of these cases are pro-Trump, but the end result is that it allows any presidential administration to enact its own policy.
Right. Because the Justices would stand by the principles they're stating and not rule differently in a future case where a Democratic President was presenting the same case.
  #10  
Old 02-22-2020, 09:46 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falchion View Post
Are you aware of many (any?) instances where the Court has provided an explanation for its grant or denial of such an application? I've read many dissents and more than a few concurrences, but I don't remember the last time I saw a majority opinion in such a situation.

It must be curious that the Court almost never has a "legitimate reason" for its actions (even when they're apparently unanimous).
Exactly. There is never a majority opinion in those grants or denials and the comment was a cheap shot with no validity or basis in anything.

But hey, at least I know that when my cert petitions were denied without comment that my argument was super-awesome not only that but so super-awesome that the judges were stunned into silence by their inability based upon political whoredom to explain why it was denied!!!!
  #11  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:25 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I disagree. The outcome of these cases are pro-Trump, but the end result is that it allows any presidential administration to enact its own policy.

Judge shopping is easy. If the Supreme Court allows these types of executive decisions to be struck down while they are litigated, in the future no president will be able to do anything.
No. You are conflating actions being withheld until they are proven to be legal with being struck down and not allowed to happen at all.

The President should not be allowed to simply do whatever he wants, even only temporarily. Any decision he makes that is (1) possibly illegal and (2) causes irreparable harm if enacted should be held up until it is proven not to be illegal. To do otherwise is to allow irreparable harm.

A president is not restricted from enacting every policy. They are only restricted from policies that have not been established to be legal and which can be shown to cause irreparable harm.

There is no reason to enact these policies immediately, as the US does not have a current immigration problem. There is no surplus of legal immigrants where we need swift action. There is no reason that we could not have the process play out.

The Court is acting contrary to how the law is supposed to work. The principles I laid out are the same principles in civil law. If you can both show that you have a case and that irreparable harm will happen, you get an injunction. The party doing the allegedly wrong thing is forced to stop until and unless they are proven to not be doing anything wrong.

And, just like in that scenario, the preliminary injunction does NOT prevent the defendant party from acting--it only delays that action until it is shown to be legal.
  #12  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:30 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...as-dissent.amp

Although this might “just” be the effect of appointing justices for their preexisting beliefs, as opposed to any particular loyalty to Trump specifically.
It's not necessary to prove that they're personally loyal to Trump. If they're allowing their personal ideology to interfere with their ability to render valid decisions and enabling him in the process, it's just as damaging to the Constitution. If the Court allows Trump to withhold his taxes from Congressional investigation, then they're legislating from the bench and invalidating a law that was specifically written to put a check on presidential power.
  #13  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:24 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,843
Lots of countries have similar laws for immigrants. Why is it only a problem when the United States does it?
  #14  
Old 02-22-2020, 11:27 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Lots of countries have similar laws for immigrants. Why is it only a problem when the United States does it?
You know that the Supreme Court of the United States can only rule on laws passed by the US, and not laws passed by other countries, right?
  #15  
Old 02-22-2020, 12:17 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You know that the Supreme Court of the United States can only rule on laws passed by the US, and not laws passed by other countries, right?
Well, duh. But why aren't there threads whining about the immigration policies of Canada, Australia, or France?
  #16  
Old 02-22-2020, 12:49 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Lots of countries have similar laws for immigrants. Why is it only a problem when the United States does it?
Because what we're discussing isn't a law. It's an executive order being issued by the President, who is not supposed to have legislative power.
  #17  
Old 02-22-2020, 01:40 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,870
First of all - it shouldn't be surprising at all that conservative justices would rule in favor of a conservative presidency. That almost goes without saying.

Secondly - it's documented (USA Today article) that the 4 liberal justices vote together as a united bloc even more often than the 5 conservatives vote in lockstep. When's the last time any of the liberal justices ever split with their three colleagues on a crucial 5-4 or 6-3 decision? They are basically a granite-hard, tight-as-superglue bloc of 4 progressive justices. They are just as guilty of consistently ruling in favor of their own internal political leanings, if not even more.
  #18  
Old 02-22-2020, 02:04 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because what we're discussing isn't a law. It's an executive order being issued by the President, who is not supposed to have legislative power.
Executive orders have the force of law, do they not?
  #19  
Old 02-22-2020, 02:17 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 87,255
Four people are more unified than five people? Gasp!
  #20  
Old 02-22-2020, 02:24 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Well, duh. But why aren't there threads whining about the immigration policies of Canada, Australia, or France?
Um...because the majority of the posters live in the US, and we're discussing American laws and lawmakers.

If you'd like to discuss immigration policies of Canada, Australia, or France, feel free to start your own thread on that. That discussion has no place in a thread that specifically mentions the Supreme Court and Trump.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #21  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:39 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Executive orders have the force of law, do they not?
Yes, that's the topic we're discussing.
  #22  
Old 02-23-2020, 03:29 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No. You are conflating actions being withheld until they are proven to be legal with being struck down and not allowed to happen at all.

The President should not be allowed to simply do whatever he wants, even only temporarily. Any decision he makes that is (1) possibly illegal and (2) causes irreparable harm if enacted should be held up until it is proven not to be illegal. To do otherwise is to allow irreparable harm.

A president is not restricted from enacting every policy. They are only restricted from policies that have not been established to be legal and which can be shown to cause irreparable harm.

There is no reason to enact these policies immediately, as the US does not have a current immigration problem. There is no surplus of legal immigrants where we need swift action. There is no reason that we could not have the process play out.

The Court is acting contrary to how the law is supposed to work. The principles I laid out are the same principles in civil law. If you can both show that you have a case and that irreparable harm will happen, you get an injunction. The party doing the allegedly wrong thing is forced to stop until and unless they are proven to not be doing anything wrong.

And, just like in that scenario, the preliminary injunction does NOT prevent the defendant party from acting--it only delays that action until it is shown to be legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because what we're discussing isn't a law. It's an executive order being issued by the President, who is not supposed to have legislative power.
First, actions are presumed legal. Nobody has to prove legality. But read the law in the link from the OP. The law says that aliens are not admissible if they are a "public charge." The executive has always been given deference to interpret laws reasonably. The Trump Administration has determined that if an alien has received public assistance for 12 of the last 36 months, they are a public charge.

That seems very reasonable, does it not? If I go to Canada or Europe just for vacation, the customs agents can demand that I prove sufficient funds for the duration of my stay. There is nothing in that interpretation that is even remotely unreasonable. It could be stricter, or it could be more lenient. It is completely up to the executive to determine that unless it is an abuse of discretion (say Trump declared that any alien without $1 million in the bank was a public charge).

But despite that plain reasonableness, the anti-Trump folks run to a District Court Judge in Whereeversville, USA that they know is far left. Then they get a preliminary injunction that applies to the entire nation. The judge refuses to issue a stay.

Unless the Supreme Court dissolves these ridiculous stays, then no president in the future will ever be able to change executive interpretations from the last administration. The right could play that game too. If President Sanders starts reversing Trump's orders, the right can just go to a hanging judge in Conservativeville U.S. District Court and get a nationwide injunction.

I mean, look at DACA. It was fine to not have it, right? Obama decrees it. Still fine. Trump reverses: nationwide injunction. It's rule by judicial fiat.

It is a new thing which needs to be stopped, or no president, including Democratic ones, can ever administer the laws.
  #23  
Old 02-23-2020, 03:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
No. You are conflating actions being withheld until they are proven to be legal with being struck down and not allowed to happen at all.

The President should not be allowed to simply do whatever he wants, even only temporarily. Any decision he makes that is (1) possibly illegal and (2) causes irreparable harm if enacted should be held up until it is proven not to be illegal. To do otherwise is to allow irreparable harm.

A president is not restricted from enacting every policy. They are only restricted from policies that have not been established to be legal and which can be shown to cause irreparable harm.

There is no reason to enact these policies immediately, as the US does not have a current immigration problem. There is no surplus of legal immigrants where we need swift action. There is no reason that we could not have the process play out.

The Court is acting contrary to how the law is supposed to work. The principles I laid out are the same principles in civil law. If you can both show that you have a case and that irreparable harm will happen, you get an injunction. The party doing the allegedly wrong thing is forced to stop until and unless they are proven to not be doing anything wrong.

And, just like in that scenario, the preliminary injunction does NOT prevent the defendant party from acting--it only delays that action until it is shown to be legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because what we're discussing isn't a law. It's an executive order being issued by the President, who is not supposed to have legislative power.
First, actions are presumed legal. Nobody has to prove legality. But read the law in the link from the OP. The law says that aliens are not admissible if they are a "public charge." The executive has always been given deference to interpret laws reasonably. The Trump Administration has determined that if an alien has received public assistance for 12 of the last 36 months, they are a public charge.

That seems very reasonable, does it not? If I go to Canada or Europe just for vacation, the customs agents can demand that I prove sufficient funds for the duration of my stay. There is nothing in that interpretation that is even remotely unreasonable. It could be stricter, or it could be more lenient. It is completely up to the executive to determine that unless it is an abuse of discretion (say Trump declared that any alien without $1 million in the bank was a public charge).

But despite that plain reasonableness, the anti-Trump folks run to a District Court Judge in Whereeversville, USA that they know is far left. Then they get a preliminary injunction that applies to the entire nation. The judge refuses to issue a stay.

Unless the Supreme Court dissolves these ridiculous stays, then no president in the future will ever be able to change executive interpretations from the last administration. The right could play that game too. If President Sanders starts reversing Trump's orders, the right can just go to a hanging judge in Conservativeville U.S. District Court and get a nationwide injunction.

I mean, look at DACA. It was fine to not have it, right? Obama decrees it. Still fine. Trump reverses: nationwide injunction. It's rule by judicial fiat.

It is a new thing which needs to be stopped, or no president, including Democratic ones, can ever administer the laws.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017