# Slate: Sotomayor implies Supreme Court conservatives are pro-Trump... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 22, 2020, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slate-sotomayor-implies-supreme-court-conservatives-are-pro-trump/848340 "2020-02-22T10:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2020, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slate-sotomayor-implies-supreme-court-conservatives-are-pro-trump/848340/21 "2020-02-23T04:39:32Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Executive orders have the force of law, do they not? Yes, that’s the topic we’re discussing. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2020, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slate-sotomayor-implies-supreme-court-conservatives-are-pro-trump/848340/22 "2020-02-23T21:29:25Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > 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. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2020, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slate-sotomayor-implies-supreme-court-conservatives-are-pro-trump/848340/23 "2020-02-23T21:37:45Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > 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. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/slate-sotomayor-implies-supreme-court-conservatives-are-pro-trump/848340.md?page=1)