From here
Mr. Ryan is correct, IMO.
Of course, this part is true as well -
We need to replace the justice, so the un-Constitutional actions of this President are struck down, not merely blocked.
Although I dislike the first phrase of the quote - no one cares, or needs to, if Obama accepts the ruling or not. Even so poor a Constitutional scholar as he should know that.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m certain that was editorializing, rather than any gaffe on POTUS’ part? And anyway, “accepting the ruling” could simply mean “not intending to continue fighting from another front.”
But overall, this is no surprise. Congress, particularly conservatives, have been concerned about executive overreach for decades (although they were noticeably less so during the Bush administration, IMHO). This is certainly a victory for that viewpoint. It’s not particularly–as the right-wing talking heads would have it–a repudiation of Obama per se, who (again IMHO) has merely continued a push for more operational power for the Executive that’s been endemic to the office for…well, a hell of a long time. The Executive pushes, eventually the Legislature pushes back. I’m fine with that, and I think it’s healthy.
I’d be happier about it if I had confidence that Congress was functional enough to actually do anything with the authority they’re reclaiming. I’d also have more respect for the “rein in the Executive” position if it weren’t so blatantly rooted in specific hatred for Obama. Were you outraged at Bush’s grabs for increased Executive power, Shodan? Can you honestly say they were all that different from those of Obama, or indeed Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, and Reagan?
I’ve supported Obama on a lot of things, including immigration reform. But even without knowing all the facts of the case, it seemed like Obama was using whatever executive power he had to inject his own worldview into matters of immigration. There are immigration laws – laws that are passed by congress and supposed to be carried into effect by executive agencies. The congress can delegate some of that power to the executive, but the executive can’t simply take it for himself. I’m not surprised at the ruling, and not especially outraged by it.
The thread title is wrong; the SCOTUS did no such thing.
Give that it was a split court, it’s probably reasonable to say that it’s not a definitive that Obama overreached. Usually, after all, the court is fairly unanimous, since most cases are fairly clearcut. This one must not be.
To be fair four Supreme Court justices found it to be constitutional and four didn’t. Hardly resounding proof of its unconstitutionality (indeed the Supreme Court absolutely did not find this unconstitutional).
You can rest assured this particular question will not be before the Supreme Court again before Obama leaves office. They will be in recess soon and won’t be back till October. Not a lot of time for Obama to do something and have a case make it all the way to them.
Well, kinda, yeah, they did. They could have given the OK to Obama’s reforms…and didn’t. That’s a passive block. If I just stand in front of the doorway, so you can’t get in…I’m blocking your access.
My feelings are mixed here. I regret this decision…but it’s a tool we can use against a future President of different ideological values, when he tries to do something we don’t like. It reduces the power of the Presidency, just a little, as an abstract feature of constitutional division-of-powers, and increases the power of the courts. Maybe more than just a little.
But without an actual majority opinion, there is not understood to be a precedent, right? A new President and a refreshed Court could see another similar case in a few years.
No. A lower court had ruled against Obama. The SCOTUS didn’t do anything. A tie is the equivalent of doing nothing. Had they not agreed to hear the case, the outcome would be the same except that no one would be trying to convince people that the SCOTUS had blocked anything when they had done no such thing.
This is Great Debates and I thought we valued accuracy in our information here so I called out the OP’s premise which is categorically false.
I agree. At best, we might say that SCOTUS’s inaction had the effect of blocking; to say that SCOTUS blocked implies an active role that simply does not exist here.
Not really. A decision like this affirms the lower court but sets no precedent. In other words, this particular case is decided… but does not serve as binding authority for other cases.
Well, it would be staggeringly hypocritical to say that it’s okay to overrule Obama in the courts, but when a later case comes along against President Jessop, it’s suddenly not okay to overrule him in the courts.
Except the Supreme Court has not overruled Obama. The 5th Circuit overruled Obama. The Supreme Court was evenly divided, but you need a majority to either affirm or overrule. Since the Supreme Court has not affirmed or overruled, the 5th Circuit decision stands.
The same issue could now be litigated in any of the other circuits. They are free to follow the 5th Circuit, or to reach the opposite conclusion and uphold Obama. There is no Supreme Court ruling on the issue, so the other circuits can do as they wish.
No, if you said that the SCOTUS inaction had the effect of blocking you’d still be wrong and still be trying to give credit where none is due. The lower court had already blocked it; SCOTUS had nothing to do with it.
You’re right.
Theoretically they could hear this case rather shortly. The appellate court ruled on an appeal of a preliminary injunction. It wasn’t the actual trial. The administration could now seek review of a final judgment and by that time the election will be passed and theoretically the court could have an additional member. The administration could simply reissue the policy slightly modified which would launch legal challenges anew.
The policy itself I was less interested in. What was most interesting was the addition of the “faithfully execute” question to this case that went unanswered.
Funny how USAToday, Reuters, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and MSNBC don’t seem to agree that saying the Supreme Court blocked Obama’s executive action is inaccurate.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not, but as a general rule neither Presidents nor Congress should undertake constitutionally dubious actions. Government powers are not something you push the envelope on.
The President correctly claims some precedent for his action, but what he proposes goes a lot further. So far, that it created standing for states due to the cost of paying some expenses for newly shielded immigrants. The previous, smaller actions did not create this problem. We’re talking five million people here. This is an action he knew wasn’t likely legal and he went all over the country saying he didn’t believe it was legal Then he just did it, cuz what’s the worst that could happen? The courts stop me? I still win the issue! So yeah, politics.
Shodan, the media knows nothing about nothing. How many journalists have a background in law? It’s like expecting lawyers to know how to regulate the oil industry. That would be insane!
News media uses inaccurate colloquial language when discussing legal matters. Film at 11!