Jump to content

U.S. Politics: It’s beginning to look a lot like Rescission


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 (with Roberts casting deciding vote) to block Trump's asylum ban. 

 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal judge's order blocking the Trump administration's new asylum restrictions.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling.
The administration's policy, signed on November 9, would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry.

 

I'm a little surprised that Roberts didn't side with the conservatives here.  This is one of the few Trump anti-immigration policies that has some actual basis in reality.  Namely that this doesn't ban asylum, it merely means that you have to go through the proper channels to be considered as an asylum seeker (namely certain points of entry).  If all asylum seekers were to arrive at a few convenient points, it would be easier for the government to process them.  Now, making things easier for the federal government shouldn't be the #1 priority for immigration law, but it's a better argument than I've heard for anything else (infinitely better than the nonsensical Wall arguments). 
 
It actually reminds me of Republican attacks on abortion.  I would expect Roberts to rule that it's ok to make it harder to ask for asylum, so long as it isn't impossible and there is some justification for it.  But he didn't.  Perhaps he's getting fed up with Trump attacking the courts all the time, and isn't interested in extending him the benefit of the doubt. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In a 5-4 ruling, the SCOTUS upheld the federal court ban on the new asylum rules. Roberts sided with the four liberal judges. 

The main point isn't that it was blocked, but that 4 judges decided that the most unambiguous language in law I've ever seen (complete with unambiguous commentary on this very issue) was also apparently totally not legit.

https://twitter.com/MikeSacksEsq/status/1076209679552995328

I think the main point is actually Roberts siding with the liberal wing yet again and this comes after Roberts actually spoke out against Trump attacking the lower court judge as an "Obama judge." Trump's attacks on the judicial process seem to be noticeably pushing Roberts leftwards (or at least centerwards).

I just hope Ginsburg holds on two more years; things are going to get really bad if the swing vote is one justices to the right of Roberts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

*Sigh*

All of these people stating their opinion on how they think things should be, but not taking the time to actually vote.

It's 2016 all over again.

O dear.  I am voting.  I am voting for none of the above. 

I'm joking also, for I did vote, and all the times too!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Well I voted all the votes! And I'll do it again! I'm about to vote my car into a river!

Ok.  u win. :crying:  I don't have car.

But-- wait!  I have TWO rivers!  2!

 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

This made me think of one I haven't seen - the orange shirts.

That would be good to look at as orange is generally hateful, but what if people think of actual oranges, or even clementines, which people approve of?

 

2 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Fixed it. I prefer that form of address far more.

Nobody appreciates what they got. They got their votes, votes, VOTES!, but then they hack the vote, :commie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

The advantage of incumbency has been declining for a while, and that trend continued or accelerated in 2018.

Indeed it has, since about the late nineties.  This is in spite of the fact incumbents' fundraising advantage has gotten increasingly ridiculous (at least in real dollars).  I tend to think a decline in incumbency advantage is inevitable with rising polarization since party affiliation is the only thing that matters on the ballot once the latter dominates.  However, it should be noted that the incumbency advantage actually consistently increased from WWII until the mid-90s (see figure 2, page 40).  That's about 10-15 years after the polarization trend started.  I could do the typical academic thing and write this off as a "lagged effect," but I'm not entirely sure.

Also, I found it interesting Abramowitz found basically no effect of voting records (DW-NOMINATE scores).  Be on the look out to see if he publishes a more detailed analysis of that himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zorral said:

That would be good to look at as orange is generally hateful, but what if people think of actual oranges, or even clementines, which people approve of?

This is true, the name does come off pretty esoteric/hard to get the reference on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

This is true, the name does come off pretty esoteric/hard to get the reference on its own.

Yellow jackets now -- the French know what they're doing!

At least, in English, yellow jackets deliver very nasty stings, that burn, itch and swell for a long time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LongRider said:

Orange Stains rather than Orange Shirts seems appropriate to me, dearie. 

You already voted MAGAts. No takesies backsies.

Unless of course you compliment my plumage (definition of compliment negotiable). Then your vote can be changed.

 

(Hey, I never claimed to be immune to corruption)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...