4 ms·

Here's the link to the actual ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf A

by koolba 8y ago

Here's the link to the actual ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf As a non-lawyer, it's a suprisingly easy read in what seems like plain English. > KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINS-BURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. The 5-4 split is also interesting with Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices.

asdf21 8y ago
I'm blown away that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are at ends, it's frankly nice to see that there will still be diversity of thought on the court.
- caprese 8y ago
  Not on the areas people were concerned about regarding human rights
- mensetmanusman 8y ago
  Remember, the media is a business. They don’t care to go into the complexity of humanity. Everything is black and white for the dollar.
- duxup 8y ago
  Kavanaugh seems to be interested in diving into the implications and results of law / decisions. Gorsuch seems more interested in just the letter of the law, regardless if that results in absurdities.
  - wang_li 8y ago
    Gorsuch's approach is the better one. We have a legislature for a reason. Letting judges interpret the law so that a given end is achieved leads to chaos as no one can know what the law means until you've personally been subjected to lawsuits.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I'm pretty skeptical about complaints about when judges "interpret" the law. No law coverall the circumstances or outcomes that may happen in life or absurdities that could come from it. I'm also skeptical about those complaints as they typically just are translated "this should be read strictly because the outcome is what I want".
      - wang_li 8y ago
        Consider DACA. It is not legislation It is an executive order by a prior president ordering ICE to create a system in which people who meet certain criteria are given effective amnesty. Obama had no authority to do this beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. Spending money on administering such a program without legislative approval, creating non-individualized discretion decisions, the law does not give the president this power. When the Trump administration attempted to end the program, at least two judges said no the program must continue to be operated. There is no authority by which judges can promote executive orders to the status of law, and then proceed order that the government spend money on the program. This was precisely a situation where the judges were uncomfortable with the outcome so they legislated from the bench.
        duxup 8y ago
        >Obama had no authority to do this beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty. >creating non-individualized discretion decisions Prioritizing deportations and prosecution based on criminal history has been done for ages, that doesn't seem much different and isn't questioned much at all...
        wang_li 8y ago
        > DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty. When was action going to be taken? Under DACA participants can renew every two years with no limit on how many renewals they can do. That's amnesty. Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution that says an executive order cannot be reversed by a later president. The courts acted as if there is and ordered the continued implementation of DACA.
mcv 8y ago
> "Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices." Not the first time he's done it either. I think he did something similar about half a year ago.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> it's a suprisingly easy read in what seems like plain English I've found almost every SCOTUS and appellate court opinion highly readable. Not only that, often quite fun. (Skip the syllabus, though.)

by koolba 8y ago

asdf21 8y ago

I'm blown away that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are at ends, it's frankly nice to see that there will still be diversity of thought on the court.

caprese 8y ago
Not on the areas people were concerned about regarding human rights
mensetmanusman 8y ago
Remember, the media is a business. They don’t care to go into the complexity of humanity. Everything is black and white for the dollar.
duxup 8y ago
Kavanaugh seems to be interested in diving into the implications and results of law / decisions. Gorsuch seems more interested in just the letter of the law, regardless if that results in absurdities.
- wang_li 8y ago
  Gorsuch's approach is the better one. We have a legislature for a reason. Letting judges interpret the law so that a given end is achieved leads to chaos as no one can know what the law means until you've personally been subjected to lawsuits.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I'm pretty skeptical about complaints about when judges "interpret" the law. No law coverall the circumstances or outcomes that may happen in life or absurdities that could come from it. I'm also skeptical about those complaints as they typically just are translated "this should be read strictly because the outcome is what I want".
    - wang_li 8y ago
      Consider DACA. It is not legislation It is an executive order by a prior president ordering ICE to create a system in which people who meet certain criteria are given effective amnesty. Obama had no authority to do this beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. Spending money on administering such a program without legislative approval, creating non-individualized discretion decisions, the law does not give the president this power. When the Trump administration attempted to end the program, at least two judges said no the program must continue to be operated. There is no authority by which judges can promote executive orders to the status of law, and then proceed order that the government spend money on the program. This was precisely a situation where the judges were uncomfortable with the outcome so they legislated from the bench.
      - duxup 8y ago
        >Obama had no authority to do this beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty. >creating non-individualized discretion decisions Prioritizing deportations and prosecution based on criminal history has been done for ages, that doesn't seem much different and isn't questioned much at all...
        wang_li 8y ago
        > DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty. When was action going to be taken? Under DACA participants can renew every two years with no limit on how many renewals they can do. That's amnesty. Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution that says an executive order cannot be reversed by a later president. The courts acted as if there is and ordered the continued implementation of DACA.

mcv 8y ago

> "Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices." Not the first time he's done it either. I think he did something similar about half a year ago.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> it's a suprisingly easy read in what seems like plain English I've found almost every SCOTUS and appellate court opinion highly readable. Not only that, often quite fun. (Skip the syllabus, though.)