-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
SCOTUS rules against Trump administration in challenge to decision to end #DACA program
- Thread starter Sr Kitsune
- Start date
He's already the new Kennedy. The rest are further right of him. He's the new middle. Obamacare and this.
Classic textbook narcissism. They don't like him because they ruled against him. He's so amazingly transparent.
What a child. So much for his neutrality on the LGBT work discrimination.
Actually what this proves is the Republican party is moving so far right so quickly that Bush appointees are considered not conservative anymore.
The Republican party is no longer trying to conserve anything they just want to reverse things and make major changes to US law and society. There is no conservative party in the US anymore. There's the centrist/socially liberal party and the reactionary party. That's why a lot of Trump voters are former Democrats or not usually voters.
His whole platform was to turn back the clock on every major issue by decades.
Using the phrase "shotgun blast to the face" and mentioning the potential for the 2nd Amendment to get overturned... yet more fear mongering and stoking of violence. Just typical President stuff, y'know.
Bunker Boy always tries to weaponize Twitter when he doesn't get his way. Pathetic.
OP
OP
I broadly agree with this. Any actual conservativism they ever had has gotten weeded out by reactionary grievance politics. It's no longer about conserving America as it is through increment legislative agendas, it's about creating America as they wish it was, by any means necessary.
One thing I'm puzzled about with the SCOTUS stuff though is that I keep hearing people say that Biden, should he win, should increase the number of SCOTUS seats and fill those with Dems, that way Dems will have the majority again. It's talked about as if it's just a totally normal/easy process to just increase the number of seats.
But if that's the case, why hasn't Trump done it yet? Does he think the existing "majority" is good enough? Or is it actually much more complicated to add more seats to SCOTUS?
Also: People also keep saying that technically a president can just appoint judges to the seats and the constitution doesn't technically spell out that the senate has to approve, so therefor Biden (should he win) should just straight up fill the seats and bypass the senate since it'll likely stay GOP majority and block him like they did Obama.
Sorry for the rant but I don't know a better place to bring this up.
But if that's the case, why hasn't Trump done it yet? Does he think the existing "majority" is good enough? Or is it actually much more complicated to add more seats to SCOTUS?
Also: People also keep saying that technically a president can just appoint judges to the seats and the constitution doesn't technically spell out that the senate has to approve, so therefor Biden (should he win) should just straight up fill the seats and bypass the senate since it'll likely stay GOP majority and block him like they did Obama.
Sorry for the rant but I don't know a better place to bring this up.
I think it just has be an act passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. It would obviously be very controversial and difficult to pass, so even with the two majorities + presidency the republicans had at the start of his term wouldn't have passed it when they couldn't even pass their healthcare 'reform' bill. They also had basically stolen a seat already so no point to add more justices when they knew at least one more retirement was coming for them to fill (and health/age possibly leading to other openings as well).
Whatever action Trump will do at this point will have too late of an effect by the time the election comes around.
He can't just snap his fingers and end DACA (which is basically what he tried to do here), and even if he could it would just get held up by the courts until past inauguration day, and if Biden wins he'd immediately be rescinding that.
Trump has a whole pile of sometimes dubious victories before this court
I mean, Gorsuch is still very conservative. It's just that he actually means that he says instead of parroting conservative talking points. I remember when he went on his rant about liberals trying to use judicial activism instead of appealing to the people. Turns out he's more equal opportunity about this as he doesn't seem to favor conservative judicial activism either. I doubt he'll get more moderate over time but I could see Gorsuch's stance being a torn in the side of liberals and conservatives for years to come. Which, like you said, is way better than the nonsense we get from Alito, Thomas & Kavanaugh.
Quick preview of the future: Gorsuch is not a fan of law enforcement overreach and inhibiting due process. Which I can't imagine conservatives thought would be major issues when Gorsuch was nominated so their reaction to that inevitable court case will be hilarious.
DACA is 1000% the morally correct thing to do.
It's also procedurally the wrong thing to do. It's fundamentally the administrative branch choosing to selectively not enforce the law, and it has always been (and will always be) on very unstable ground because of that.
The courts rightly held Trump to account for the harmful manner in which he tried to turn it off, but fundamentally DACA exists at the whims of the Administrative branch and is a flimsy band-aid for this country's nightmarish immigration policies.
It's also procedurally the wrong thing to do. It's fundamentally the administrative branch choosing to selectively not enforce the law, and it has always been (and will always be) on very unstable ground because of that.
The courts rightly held Trump to account for the harmful manner in which he tried to turn it off, but fundamentally DACA exists at the whims of the Administrative branch and is a flimsy band-aid for this country's nightmarish immigration policies.
Decisions in the Supreme Court are the opposite of arbitrary. And most Supreme Court nominees are not "compromised," whatever that even means in this context.
I agree with this.
The next president needs to push congress to pass DACA/DREAM legislation within the next term, get it through Congress and on the president's desk. Ideally, I think that Biden should run strongly on this within his first 100 days, that it's part of his 100 days ticket. if the election predictions hold, It seems like the senate is going to be tight, either Democrats might win a 1 seat majority, or a 50/50 tie falling to Biden's VP to break the tie, or Republicans hold a narrow 1-2 seat majority even everything swings their way in November, enough to possibly erode 1-2 votes from McConnell in the aftermath of TRumpism. Really play up the moral imperative to try to get someone like Mitt Romney to vote with their conscience, not their caucus.
This is a winning political issue for Democrats, majorities of Americans support DACA legislation and official status for DACA recipients. Even in otherwise conservative states, there is modest support for official status for DACA recipients.
You have to appreciate guys like Shapiro and Arthur Bloom kind of getting the hint that the traditional GOP only latched onto social conservatism to promote economic conservatism.
Decisions like Citizens United, gutting the VRA, and allowing gerrymandering are ultimately in service of economic forces. If they could get all they want without courting the controversy of Nazis, they would. Even with this decision, Roberts gave them an out, saying they have to do their homework before gutting the program. Enacting a policy just to hurt people only works if you give it a smokescreen.
Decisions like Citizens United, gutting the VRA, and allowing gerrymandering are ultimately in service of economic forces. If they could get all they want without courting the controversy of Nazis, they would. Even with this decision, Roberts gave them an out, saying they have to do their homework before gutting the program. Enacting a policy just to hurt people only works if you give it a smokescreen.
Says the guy that got to nominate 2 seats in a single term
Fuck you I'm glad they are ruling against you!
UGH its actually a miracle that any decisions are going the right way at all considering the circumstances
You need a trifecta, President, House, and Senate to do it and the Republican party was too satisfied by the Garland/Gorsuch maneuver and Kavanaugh to consider such a move in 2017-2018. The challenge is that no matter who does it, packing the court will be very unpopular, both from supporters and opponents, so it's not something that can be done lightly and requires a rare degree of consensus among legislators. The idea that Democrats should expand the court is an aspirational goal more than an actual plan and is highly unlikely to happen. The other reason is that it's a gamble, it might end up seriously harming you later, so the poor situation but relative stability of the current arrangement is often seen as preferable.
The loophole you're referring to requires the Senate to go into recess, which they don't technically have to do even if they aren't meeting, so it's effectively impossible unless the opposing party screws up. And even if you do appoint a justice like that, it would be super controversial and would involve a long legal battle, so it's a last chance desperation move that is unlikely to be attempted by any president.
Yep.
That said, there's no reason DHS can't go through the proper process and still end DACA right? The case seems to leave it open to that effect.
I think this is something that people have a hard time wrapping their head around, especially when I see people asking how they should talk to relatives who support Trump, or wonder why they vote against their own self-interest, and shit like that.
The hard truth of the matter is these people don't give a shit about what Trump can do for them. They only care about how much he can hurt people they don't like. That's it. That's all there is to them. They want people in power who will hurt those they hate, and the crueler the better.
That's why you can't talk to them or reason with them or try to convince them to see things a different way. You can only fight them and defeat them.
This has been pretty much the entire modern history of the court as the world gets more liberal. Even in the last few decades we've had Souter, Kennedy & O'Conner. The real oddities are justices like Thomas so seem content on pushing conservative values through sheer apathy.
Well that was the scenario in the first place since there's no way Ginsburg and Breyer both endure another term of Trump.
*cough*
Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia
The fact that so many decisions are "coincidentally" split down party lines shows it's absolutely compromised. No one should want the safeguarding of basic rights in the hands of such a messed up institution.
