Dreamers and the Supreme Court

[HedonistForever]

If you want to know the definition of Judicial Activism and the exact opposite of "literalism" or "original intent", how about this quote from Sotomayor on the Dreamers case before the SC, "That outcome would "destroy lives," declared Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one the court's liberals who repeatedly suggested the administration has not adequately justified its decision to end the seven-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Nor has it taken sufficient account of the personal, economic and social disruption that might result, they said.


See, I thought that the job of a SC Justice was to interpret the written words in the Constitution not make up words that are not found in the Constitution. What the Justices are supposed to be deciding IMHO, is to decide whether what Obama did was "make law" something he repeatedly told his Hispanic audiences that he could not do as President. I think his exact quote was "there are things that a President simply can't do", until he decided that he could. And if Obama can make a new law with an Executive Decision, surely a new President can undue that Executive Decision, right? Well, not if the new President is Donald Trump it would seem.


Now for the record, I'm not opposed to letting the Dreamers stay and someday even have the right to vote but not any time soon. What I am for no matter who it helps or hurts, is a literal interpretation of the words in the Constitution. If it says that a President may not make new law because that is reserved for the Legislature, then that's the way it works for any President regardless of party.


What does the "outcome" of their decision have to do with whether the ruling is found in the Constitution or isn't? If the Legislature wants the Dreamers to stay, they can easily make that law. If they can't, it is no concern or business of the Supreme Court IMHO.


The lower courts are saying that Trump can't justify his decision to rescind the Obama EO. Can't justify? Why would you have to justify rescinding an illegal EO? Hey Justices, the only thing you have to decide is whether the Obama order was legal or not. Everything else will work it's way out from there.

[Chung Tran]

it's an age old debate, the strict Constitutionist argument. that ideal died at least 60 years ago. Roberts upheld Obamacare because he thought it was bad policy to let 30 million people lose health coverage. Trump found a different path to destroy Obamacare.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

If you want to know the definition of Judicial Activism and the exact opposite of "literalism" or "original intent", how about this quote from Sotomayor on the Dreamers case before the SC, "That outcome would "destroy lives," declared Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one the court's liberals who repeatedly suggested the administration has not adequately justified its decision to end the seven-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Nor has it taken sufficient account of the personal, economic and social disruption that might result, they said.


See, I thought that the job of a SC Justice was to interpret the written words in the Constitution not make up words that are not found in the Constitution. What the Justices are supposed to be deciding IMHO, is to decide whether what Obama did was "make law" something he repeatedly told his Hispanic audiences that he could not do as President. I think his exact quote was "there are things that a President simply can't do", until he decided that he could. And if Obama can make a new law with an Executive Decision, surely a new President can undue that Executive Decision, right? Well, not if the new President is Donald Trump it would seem.


Now for the record, I'm not opposed to letting the Dreamers stay and someday even have the right to vote but not any time soon. What I am for no matter who it helps or hurts, is a literal interpretation of the words in the Constitution. If it says that a President may not make new law because that is reserved for the Legislature, then that's the way it works for any President regardless of party.


What does the "outcome" of their decision have to do with whether the ruling is found in the Constitution or isn't? If the Legislature wants the Dreamers to stay, they can easily make that law. If they can't, it is no concern or business of the Supreme Court IMHO.


The lower courts are saying that Trump can't justify his decision to rescind the Obama EO. Can't justify? Why would you have to justify rescinding an illegal EO? Hey Justices, the only thing you have to decide is whether the Obama order was legal or not. Everything else will work it's way out from there.

So if it is not legal for Obama to declare Dreamers without changing the law.....can Trump not have to have Congress fund his wall?

[Unique_Carpenter]

What part of the Dreamers thing does anyone think is actual law? It was an Odumbo executive order.
If its wanted, why wasn't it passed as a law?
The dims tried to several times but it never made it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

... Roberts upheld Obamacare because he thought it was bad policy to let 30 million people lose health coverage. Trump found a different path to destroy Obamacare.

Where did Roberts say that in the opinion? With all due respect it appears you are mindreading and assigning thoughts to Roberts he did not express. I'll give you a quote from his opinion that would indicate otherwise than what you have expressed.

The appeal of the Affordable Care Act was not on whether it was "good" for the country or even a slice of the population.

When reading SCOTUS opinions thoughtfully one can more often than not glean references that provide direction in future courses of action, which is exactly what Roberts did. Some of the alleged "defeats" of Trump in the SCOTUS are not really "defeats," but guidance of how to posture the next round to win! Strict constructionism isn't dead. It's alive and well. Wait until Trump's next nomination to the SCOTUS.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by WTF

So if it is not legal for Obama to declare Dreamers without changing the law.....can Trump not have to have Congress fund his wall?

Uh, Trump didn't change any "law". He he used money that the SC ruled he could use.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ll_140877.html


Supreme Court: Trump Can Use Pentagon Funds for Border Wall


We'll know soon enough if the SC thinks that what Obama did was legal and whether Trump can undo it.

[HedonistForever]

It's such a simplistic argument as to be laughable to argue that Obama can do something by EO but the next President can't undo it by EO but I guess Democrat = Good, Republican= Bad

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Uh, Trump didn't change any "law". He he used money that the SC ruled he could use.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...ll_140877.html


Supreme Court: Trump Can Use Pentagon Funds for Border Wall


We'll know soon enough if the SC thinks that what Obama did was legal and whether Trump can undo it.

Yes the Trump loaded SC has taken Congress out of the budgeting process.

Trump is now trying to make it acceptable where the next president can have a foreign power dig up dirt on his political opponents under monetary threat.

It is sorry times we are going through....

[HedonistForever]

[QUOTE=WTF;1061848365]Yes the Trump loaded SC has taken Congress out of the budgeting process.

Trump is now trying to make it acceptable where the next president can have a foreign power dig up dirt on his political opponents under monetary threat.

It is sorry times we are going through....

One way to look at it or it could be that the law says exactly that, you know like Obama said, he had"discretion" on how to spend immigration funds and could just ignore the law that says you may not enter this country illegally like every other government in the world.


But tell me, if the SC had 5 liberals and a Democratic President would you believe every decision for the President would be a sound legal decision? Why of course you would. Obama quote: "elections have consequences".


Do you believe a Democrat President would "load the court" with Liberals or is loading the court just a Republican thing? Careful, your answer will tell us a lot about your thinking.

[Yachtmaster]

Hedonist,

Are you serious? Why would President Trump even need any help defeating Joe Biden? What you're asking the president to do is ignore corruption just because Joe Biden in a politician. Don't you understand that is the SWAMP and what President Trump has promised to eliminate. What you're forgetting is that Trump also wants interference in our elections investigated which every US citizen should support. It is in our national interest to have Ukraine investigate interference in our election and if holding up money to force them to do so is perfectly legal and reasonable.

Whether it's a democrat or republican they will nominate justices based on their own criteria. What you're referring to is "packing the court" which is something entirely different. Packing the court is increasing the number of justices then filling those seats immediately with your selections. This is something democrats are advocating very strongly for in an attempt to counter a right leaning Trump court.

[winn dixie]

Bottom line. Get 'em out! All of'em..

Close the borders. Plural! yeah fuck canada 2

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yachtmaster

What you're referring to is "packing the court" which is something entirely different. Packing ....

The only "packing" going on now are the LOONS in the House packing each others' asses as they flounder in the sesspool they generated by tossing out every standard of fairness, due process, and/or equal protection .... while declaring themselves "winners" like the Loons on here. In fact I'm beginning to think they have handles on here.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Yachtmaster

What you're asking the president to do is ignore corruption just because Joe Biden in a politician. Don't you understand that is the SWAMP and what President Trump has promised to eliminate. What you're forgetting is that Trump also wants interference in our elections investigated

spin.. if Trump really wanted the SWAMP drained, he would have gone through the DOJ to investigate, not "America's Mayor" to run a shadow scheme involving corrupt Ukraine Mobsters.

yeah, Trump now thinks the Ukraine is responsible, not Russia, in the election meddling.. no evidence. just looks like one in a long string of concessions to Putin.

[LexusLover]

Tran ... you're floundering. It's comical, but sad at the same time.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Tran ... you're floundering. It's comical, but sad at the same time.

how? anyone can toss an insult. back it up.