Sadly, since Alito and Roberts joined the court (thanks, Ralph!), the number of times eminent Constitutional scholars and practitioners have advised us not to worry about a thing that eventually happened has undermined my capacity to be reassured by their assurances.
12 Likes
It seems they have not yet learned the lessons of The Law of Unintended Consequences which now plagues their nominating process also.
2 Likes
Sounds to me like they are consigned to the fact that HRC will be POTUS. heheheh
1 Like
Not any white man, Sanders would get the same treatment…but the “right” kind of white man would be free to do as he wishes.
2 Likes
The first two were former governors?
1 Like
I think the most likely outcome is for Roberts to allow the action to stand under the Take Care clause, but alter the formula for states’ standing to sue the federal government by finding for the plaintiffs on the standing issue.
This would represent a minor victory for conservatives, disguised as a victory for the administration. It would be a pyrrhic victory, like the original ACA decision that made the medicade expansion optional.
2 Likes
More profoundly than just Obama/Hillary and as suggestion of the depths of the judicial hackery/quackery afoot in the prospective undermining of executive authority, is the notion that the Supreme 5 understand that the changing demographics of the American electorate make a Republican President of the United States as unlikely as a Republican Governor of California. Gerrymandering and voter suppression and the fecklessness of the national Democratic Party should allow off-Presidential elections to keep Congress or at least the House of Representatives foreseeably well in-hand. I am still frustrated by FORMER Congressman Ron Barber (successor to Gabrielle Giffords) campaigning on his desire to seek ‘commonsense bi-partisan solutions’ in the 2012 soundings that he barely won and the 2014 soundings that he, thus, deservedly lost. That is fecklessness. And this model could be national governance for the 21st century.
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona’s_2nd_Congressional_District_elections,_2014
http://ronbarberforcongress.com/news/republican-leaders-endorse-ron-barber-for-congress/
2 Likes
Conservatives from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation have celebrated the question’s inclusion.
Isn’t Ted always railing against “Unelected Judges”?
6 Likes
Could I then sue to say that the Feds are enforcing drug laws more heavily in poor minority communities than they are in white one? I can think of a WHOLE bunch of fun things to sue for.
3 Likes
I don’t know! This has been such a well-rounded, fair Supreme Court (who broke into the 21st century with Bush v. Gore) that I have full faith and confidence in them!
1 Like
I think Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas looked over the GOP presidential field and realized they’ll need to outlast Hillary if they don’t want to be replaced by a Democrat, so this is just spite.
1 Like
Back in the days of the Clinton administration, I had a number of Latino friends who were very upbeat about G.W. Bush.
We all know what happened.
The justices that Bush appointed, the damage DONE by Bush in so many other areas…all are responsible for what Littlegirlblue has identified as a Latino community under seige. I grieve for those Latino kids having pesadillas when the word “Trump” is uttered. I grieve for all the families whose lives could have been better. I grieve for people who are too intimidated to vote.
The problem with Stupid is that there it results in more than jokes for Noah and Maher.
3 Likes
I hate to be a contrary voice here, but . . .
First, it was the gov’t that sought review of the lower court decisions because they were adverse to Obama’s power. It’s hard to argue that the Court’s granting review at the gov’ts request is a slap to the administration.
Second, the “take care” argument was addressed heavily by the states below, though was not part of the decisions and was not a primary issue raised by the respondents. According to Scotusblog, it’s not clear why the court would ask for briefing on the issue, but it could be not to leave anything untouched:
4 Likes
Actual case = technical, and obscure. TPM headline = histrionic.
As a liberal, I’m happy any time someone wants to challenge the breadth/scope of executive power in the courts. Past Presidents have expanded the reach of that office far beyond what the founders/constitution intended. It’d just be nice if this sort of thing also happened when Repubs (and white people) were in the White House. That’s all.
3 Likes
No!
Supposedly, the conservative members of the court (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts) are all strong believers in the “unitary executive;” that the constitution vests all executive power in the President.*
Since the decision as to when and where to enforce existing immigrant laws is a function of the executive branch, I don’t think Obama has anything to worry about.
Oh wait. Sorry. I didn’t see that asterisk.
Never mind.
*- except when the President is a Democrat and the Legislative branch is Republican.
4 Likes
I think the right has pretty much decided that, because of the way things are going demographically, the Presidency will most often be held by liberals and Democrats well into the future. Therefore their only recourse is to reduce the power of the Presidency vis-a-vis Congress and the courts, where the conservative side will be able to hold onto power longer.
3 Likes
IOKIYAR. You know that by now. But seriously it doesn’t look good. More reason to get latinos out to vote. I do believe if Scotus does this, it will help us.
1 Like
7 Likes
Does anyone still wonder why we shouldn’t have a Republican in the White House again 2017-20?
2-3 more Mini Scalias would set this in stone for the next 20-30 years and repeal most of the 20th Century progressive laws. A bridge to the 19th Century Gilded Age!
7 Likes