5 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
      - duxup 7y ago
        You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't amnesty. Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can. The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
        wang_li 7y ago
        > You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't amnesty. I clearly stated "effective amnesty" in my original post. If the day of action can be indefinitely put off, then it's effective amnesty. >Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can. What is the constitutional basis for a prior president's executive orders being irreversible by a later president? >The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program. What's the constitutional, or statutory, basis for non-citizens who have no lawful status in the country, to have a right to remain in the country?
        duxup 7y ago
        I feel like you could answer most of your questions by simply reading the decision(s) related to the DACA case. You're understanding or at least shifting statements that revolve around this being purely a case where a president has the right to change course is simply not the only factor at play. You seem more concerned about the question of immigration rather than the actual law / decisions in play.

duxup 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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.
    - duxup 7y ago
      You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't amnesty. Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can. The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
      - wang_li 7y ago
        > You don't have to set a date for action to be taken... that still isn't amnesty. I clearly stated "effective amnesty" in my original post. If the day of action can be indefinitely put off, then it's effective amnesty. >Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can. What is the constitutional basis for a prior president's executive orders being irreversible by a later president? >The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program. What's the constitutional, or statutory, basis for non-citizens who have no lawful status in the country, to have a right to remain in the country?
        duxup 7y ago
        I feel like you could answer most of your questions by simply reading the decision(s) related to the DACA case. You're understanding or at least shifting statements that revolve around this being purely a case where a president has the right to change course is simply not the only factor at play. You seem more concerned about the question of immigration rather than the actual law / decisions in play.