Yeah, I’m largely in agreement with my party on illegal immigrants. I don’t think we should dream of stopping all illegal immigration, or expend “too much” resources on deporting. But we should prohibit at the Federal level “sanctuary cities” by blocking 100% of Federal funds to any city which adopts such a policy, and I’d consider things like cutting State highway funds by 50% to any State that allows a sanctuary city to exist in its borders (States can outright prohibit sanctuary cities through State law, the Federal government cannot.)
I also do not think birthright citizenship is appropriate any longer, I don’t want illegals coming in and being able to permanently sway our political process by giving birth to kids that will just vote for more unrestricted immigration–it’s a losing game for America. I’m willing to look the other way, to a degree, on the illegals that are here (I’m strongly in favor of a guest worker program by the way), but when law enforcement finds them they should be deported, simple as that.
See, I’m actually to the left of you on the immigration issue, but the thing is, I also believe in rule of law over rule of men, and our immigration system is a prime example of rule of men, and men influenced primarily by political considerations at that.
I’d be hard pressed to think of a decision just getting overturned directly, with no reasoning as to why it changed. With something like Brown vs. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned because it was clear by then that separate but equal was a crock. I just don’t know what possible reasoning could allow gay marriage to be overturned, or even Roe, and I can’t imagine Democrats wouldn’t filibuster any nominee they actually thought would do that.
By the same token Heller and Citizens United are also binding precedent which I expect liberal jurists would uphold.
Unauthorized then. Undocumented is a bullshit word because most illegal immigrants are not actually undocumented. They have documents, they just are here past their legal stays.
Stare decesis absolutely matters, the court in Casey was majority Republican (meaning 8/9, only Democratic Justice on the court for Casey was Byron White who had been appointed by Kennedy) and some thought they’d overturn Roe–they didn’t. They allowed for States to implement a slightly more restricted standard than Roe (abandoning the trimester system in favor of “viability”, which allows for restricting abortion slightly earlier), but the core right to get an abortion wasn’t in serious threat.
That’s why I actually question the likelihood of any court ever overturning Roe.
Sorry to hijack away from the topic of immigration, but does anyone mind if we digress a bit and talk about the South Carolina primary? I’m finding the official results for vote count (Trump in the lead, Rubio a hair ahead of Cruz for second), but I’m not familiar enough with South Carolina’s rules to know how that translates to delegate count. Did Trump claim all of them, or do Rubio and/or Cruz have some?
I get your point; overturned would be the better term.
As to whether a decision being overturned is movement forward or not is really subjective. Rubio, Cruz and like minded folks would likely take the position that the SSM decision was a setback for “traditional” marriage so overturning it would be moving forward in the direction they believe society should go. You or I might see it as a setback or reversal for the advancement of civil rights.
I’m not so sure about that. I remember Marshall and Brennan in every single damn death penalty case either dissenting or concurring with the bland statement that they believed the death penalty was unconstitutional and would never uphold it. Stare decisis be damned.
Scalia and Thomas did/do the same thing in any abortion case: say that Roe v. Wade and Casey were wrongly decided and should be overruled.
I agree with you about SSM, though. Say in 2022, near the end of President Cruz’s second term we have a 7-2 conservative bloc on the Court that overturns Obergefell. What are they going to do, say that these people that have been married for 7 years are now unmarried? What about the joint assets, the future expectations based upon the government?
Overturning Roe would mean no more abortions from that point moving forward. Overturning Obergefell would mean screwing with people’s established lives.
Um, being an illegal immigrant is not a neutral thing to be, it’s like saying “criminal is a pejorative term.” Well duh, committing crimes is a negative thing, and being called someone who commits crimes is pejorative. Illegals aren’t neutral, they came into the country against our laws and reside here in violation of our immigration and naturalization regulations.