Discussion for article #237228
Generally, I think the State Department should stay out of the business of endorsing other countries’ imperialism.
5 Likes
This is a fairly arcane matter which until today I had not read about, but it’s always a good day any time SCOTUS rules in favor of the White House, slaps down overreach by the Congress and
Scalia also took a swipe at Justice Clarence Thomas’s partial concurrence
5 Likes
SCOTUS also did a 7-2 slapdown of the NRA today.
5 Likes
You might know I live in San Francisco, and I like to think we’re enlightened enough to keep gun regs in place. This is good news.
5 Likes
I’m kinda surprised they heard it at all, based on what I’m seeing here in brief, the standing issues were really weak. Guess they decided this was the only way they’d get to settle this particular separation of powers issue.
Might have been pre-emptive. They probably realized that if they didn’t settle this now, the Federal courts could be flooded with new lawsuits. The wingnuts don’t seem to take the hint when the Supremes deny cert. The wingnuts read a denial of cert as :“Proceed at full speed.”
2 Likes
Thomas must be thinking, “with friends like Scalia who needs enemies?”
While I think this is not considered by many court watchers to be a major opinion, I do think it has some significant implications – particularly in light of Cuba and Iran. The decision finds:
The President, unlike Congress, also has the power to open diplomatic channels simply by engaging in direct diplomacy with foreign heads of state and their ministers. The Constitution thus assigns the President, not Congress, means to effect recognitionon his own initiative.
Functional considerations also suggest that the President’s recognition power is exclusive. The Nation must “speak . . . with one voice” regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not, American Insurance Assn. v. GaraÂmendi, 539 U. S. 396, 424, and only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times. Unlike Congress, the President is also capable of engaging in the delicate and often secret diplomatic contacts that may lead to a recognition decision, see, e.g., United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203, 229, and is better positioned to take the decisive, unequivocal action necessary to recognize other states at international law. [Emphasis added]
In quoting Garamendi, SCOTUS is clearly reinforcing the “speaking with one voice” concept which has held until Obama came to office. So, as much as the GOP in Congress wants to squawk about Obama’s diplomatic conversations with Cuba, the Executive clearly has the authority to do so. For Congress to pass a law saying the President must not act toward Cuba in such a manner would be unconstitutional. This becomes more important when it comes to the nuclear deal being negotiated with Iran. The Administration has been careful NOT to call it a treaty (to do so, would require Congressional approval). So for people like Tom Cotton who would like to pass legislation now while the deal is being negotiated, SCOTUS with this ruling has been clear – it is outside Congress’ authority.
7 Likes
Will Thomas just give in to his inferiority complex and go postal some day?
It was not Israeli, sorry, “Zionist Entity” imperialism that lead it to control of Jerusalem. But don’t let that salient fact get in the way of your narrative, especially when you will gloss over it with later governments’ expansion of neighborhoods.
> Will Thomas just give in to his inferiority complex and go postal some day?
I remember when he was appointed by Poppy Bush: debate was all about whether or not Thomas had sexuaully harassed Anita Hill in that period (which, of course, he had).
I took the position that this was crazy: Thomas had no business in the world sitting on the Supreme Court, with his non-existent qualifications, harassment or not harassment. It was not a proposal worth considering. I was in a tiny minority in taken this view. He has more than proven me right, obviously. Idea was to replace Thurgood Marshall with another black face, only this time, conservative. What a fuckup!!
1 Like
Unitary Power, isn’t that what the neo-cons called it when they wanted it for themselves.
The neo-con/teabagger/wingnut factions have an incredible flexibility in their devotion to principle. In fact, they can turn it on its head, do 180’s, flip flops and absolute about faces.
Even with this decision going for the Obama administration, the ultimate wingers, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and partial dumb dumb Thomas remained in loonyville, whereas, they will ever remain.
So, because Israel didn’t set out to take over East Jerusalem, their control of it now doesn’t count? Would you prefer that I edit my post to say we shouldn’t endorse ¨other countries’ originally inadvertent but now de facto imperialism¨? And your little dig about ¨Zionist Entity¨ is not appreciated; would you like it if I implied that you secretly wanted to say ¨Judea and Samaria¨ when talking about the West Bank?
Interesting that Scalia places so much power in the hands of Congress’ 2 houses. His “textualism” approach to the law and the Constitution often go awry in making the intentions of Congress work. I’m sure that his “textualism” will find him on the wrong side of “King v. Burwell.” And finally, if there is any place in the nation where partisanship should never rear its ugly head(s) it is in the Supreme Court and every court under its constitutional mandate, otherwise the Good Behaviour (sic) language of Art. III, Sec. 1 should kick in.