The Dream Lives
-
wrote on 18 Jun 2020, 16:46 last edited by
SCOTUS rules that administration can't end DACA.
Without getting into the legal weeds here (as if I understood them anyway), this strikes me as being a terribly dangerous position. Basically, one administration's executive order, regardless of legality, binds subsequent administrations. It gives POTUS, for all practical purposes, the power to legislate, with the assurance that these orders will continue regardless of who occupies the WH in the future.
-
wrote on 18 Jun 2020, 16:58 last edited by
Except for the fact that the can has been kicked for so many years and there isn’t real disagreement on the fundamentals.
The problematic part is when the Supreme Court has to be the adult in the room which seems like scope creep to the Constitution.
-
Except for the fact that the can has been kicked for so many years and there isn’t real disagreement on the fundamentals.
The problematic part is when the Supreme Court has to be the adult in the room which seems like scope creep to the Constitution.
wrote on 18 Jun 2020, 17:08 last edited by@Loki said in The Dream Lives:
Except for the fact that the can has been kicked for so many years and there isn’t real disagreement on the fundamentals.
The problematic part is when the Supreme Court has to be the adult in the room which seems like scope creep to the Constitution.
DACA enjoys wide support, to be sure.
My concern is the court's ruling than an administration is bound by the executive orders of a previous administration, functionally giving EO's the force of law.
-
wrote on 18 Jun 2020, 18:11 last edited by
Yeah, that doesn't seem right. Certainly doesn't seem wise.
-
@George-K My understanding is it explicitly says otherwise, and Robert’s opinion was specifically on the method (insufficient public comment etc via administrative procedures act).
wrote on 19 Jun 2020, 11:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Dream Lives:
@George-K My understanding is it explicitly says otherwise, and Robert’s opinion was specifically on the method (insufficient public comment etc via administrative procedures act).
Yeah. I dove a little deeper. Interesting that they, for all practical purposes, passed on it
by calling it a taxbased on procedure rather than actual law (which doesn't exist). From a purely political point, it delays consideration until after November, when, if Trump wins, they can revisit it. If Biden wins, it's moot. -
wrote on 15 Jul 2020, 13:09 last edited by
The WaPo "Fact Checker" criticizes Trump's proposed immigration plan:
Umm...Mr. Kessler, ah, never mind, you know where I was going with this.
