9 ms·

Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling

dahfizz 5y ago
>why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling People only think executive overreach is cool as long as they can ignore the downsides.
adolph 5y ago
%s/current/any/
gowld 5y ago
Can you link to info about that?
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  At least with the eviction moratorium, it was ruled unconstitutional by scotus and biden doubled down and enacted a new illegal eviction moratorium. Seems like they are kind of picking and choosing what rules they'll follow, and which rights they think people deserve
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattkrause 5y ago
    No, it wasn't. The Court originally declined to vacate the stay in a 5-4 decision. The fifth vote was from Kavanaugh, who wrote that he thought the stay should be vacated, but wasn't voting to do so because the moratorium was about to expire anyway. That concurrence is certainly informative, but doesn't override his actual vote to maintain the stay. The second moratorium was quickly overturned, with Kavanaugh voting this time in accordance with his opinion. In any case, the administration did actually follow that ruling. This is taken directly from the actual decision (the first round is discussed on page 4): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
- iammisc 5y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
  - Spivak 5y ago
    Seems like a good political move though, now the courts actually have to make the administration stop and get all the negative heat from putting people on the street. I mean the supreme law of the land let an order they believed was unconstitutional stand because of their personal moral imperatives and empathy toward renters. Is it really that crazy to shoot your shot and see if they do it again? Like the whole situation is nuts — “I think this is unconstitutional but I’m not going to say so because the law is gonna expire soon.” If that’s really the case then you could rule the other way with a clear conscience since it’s only a few days. Taking a bet that it was a bluff with little downsides if your wrong seems like a no brainer. And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > let a law they believed was unconstitutional Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
      - Spivak 5y ago
        Right, my only point was that it essentially cost the administration nothing to extend it on the chance that they would decline again or vote differently when it actually mattered.
themitigating 5y ago
Can you provide a source?
- iammisc 5y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal. SCOTUS said the moratorium exceeded the CDC's legal authority, but declined to strike it down given it was soon expiring [1]. (They also strongly suggested that if POTUS tried renewing, they would strike it down.) POTUS tried renewing. SCOTUS struck it down. None of this is properly construed as POTUS ignoring SCOTUS. When SCOTUS struck down the law, POTUS obliged. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-eviction-ban-in-place/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-evic...
    - iammisc 5y ago
      This is next level rationalizing. For a president to say in no clear terms that he is going to make a rule he knows is illegal is something else. At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wayoutthere 5y ago
Yeah the SCOTUS has basically no legitimacy left at both the federal and state level. States are routinely ignoring Supreme Court rulings and have for years, and federal agencies don’t listen to them either anymore. The rule of law in the US is on life support right now. Another Trump presidency will kick the patient out the window.
- brobdingnagians 5y ago
  We are in another Trump presidency for all practical purposes. Increasing surveillance, rule by executive order, no respect for the press, no transparency, business as usual, threatening other countries. Not much has changed.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    Yeah that’s the real bipartisan agenda.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Not even close. Another Trump regime will spell the end of any democracy at all in the USA. He will finish the fascist insurrection that he started.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I don't really understand what Trump did differently, he just was more direct with implementing bad ideas. But surveillance steadily increased under previous presidencies. Government doesn't understand that this mistrust is mirrored by the populous at some point. In a democracy surveillance should be directed towards officials, not the populous. I think it pretty stupid to blame Trump. Yes, he was funny (as a non-American) but certainly not the reason for the structural issues and the split in political camps. A symptom perhaps and a predictable one I believe.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
The President is basically the head of law enforcement in the federal government. Police organizations in the USA have a long history of pushing the limits of what is Constitutional. After all, they just want to get their job done and leave it up to the judiciary to decide what is Constitutional.

dahfizz 5y ago

>why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling People only think executive overreach is cool as long as they can ignore the downsides.

adolph 5y ago

%s/current/any/

gowld 5y ago

Can you link to info about that?

RattleyCooper 5y ago
At least with the eviction moratorium, it was ruled unconstitutional by scotus and biden doubled down and enacted a new illegal eviction moratorium. Seems like they are kind of picking and choosing what rules they'll follow, and which rights they think people deserve
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mattkrause 5y ago
  No, it wasn't. The Court originally declined to vacate the stay in a 5-4 decision. The fifth vote was from Kavanaugh, who wrote that he thought the stay should be vacated, but wasn't voting to do so because the moratorium was about to expire anyway. That concurrence is certainly informative, but doesn't override his actual vote to maintain the stay. The second moratorium was quickly overturned, with Kavanaugh voting this time in accordance with his opinion. In any case, the administration did actually follow that ruling. This is taken directly from the actual decision (the first round is discussed on page 4): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
iammisc 5y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
- Spivak 5y ago
  Seems like a good political move though, now the courts actually have to make the administration stop and get all the negative heat from putting people on the street. I mean the supreme law of the land let an order they believed was unconstitutional stand because of their personal moral imperatives and empathy toward renters. Is it really that crazy to shoot your shot and see if they do it again? Like the whole situation is nuts — “I think this is unconstitutional but I’m not going to say so because the law is gonna expire soon.” If that’s really the case then you could rule the other way with a clear conscience since it’s only a few days. Taking a bet that it was a bluff with little downsides if your wrong seems like a no brainer. And the administration gets to say they did all they could and it’s up to congress now.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > let a law they believed was unconstitutional Nobody alleged anything was unconstitutional. The question was whether the CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it. The Court declined to answer that question when it was first raised. It answered it, definitively, the second time, striking down the moratorium extension.
    - Spivak 5y ago
      Right, my only point was that it essentially cost the administration nothing to extend it on the chance that they would decline again or vote differently when it actually mattered.

themitigating 5y ago

Can you provide a source?

iammisc 5y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-s-rebuff-to-supreme-court-on-eviction-ban-will-backfire https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-... > The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension. In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal. SCOTUS said the moratorium exceeded the CDC's legal authority, but declined to strike it down given it was soon expiring [1]. (They also strongly suggested that if POTUS tried renewing, they would strike it down.) POTUS tried renewing. SCOTUS struck it down. None of this is properly construed as POTUS ignoring SCOTUS. When SCOTUS struck down the law, POTUS obliged. [1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-eviction-ban-in-place/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/divided-court-leaves-evic...
  - iammisc 5y ago
    This is next level rationalizing. For a president to say in no clear terms that he is going to make a rule he knows is illegal is something else. At least other administrations justify their attempts to break the law and mount some defense.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wayoutthere 5y ago

Yeah the SCOTUS has basically no legitimacy left at both the federal and state level. States are routinely ignoring Supreme Court rulings and have for years, and federal agencies don’t listen to them either anymore. The rule of law in the US is on life support right now. Another Trump presidency will kick the patient out the window.

brobdingnagians 5y ago
We are in another Trump presidency for all practical purposes. Increasing surveillance, rule by executive order, no respect for the press, no transparency, business as usual, threatening other countries. Not much has changed.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  Yeah that’s the real bipartisan agenda.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Not even close. Another Trump regime will spell the end of any democracy at all in the USA. He will finish the fascist insurrection that he started.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I don't really understand what Trump did differently, he just was more direct with implementing bad ideas. But surveillance steadily increased under previous presidencies. Government doesn't understand that this mistrust is mirrored by the populous at some point. In a democracy surveillance should be directed towards officials, not the populous. I think it pretty stupid to blame Trump. Yes, he was funny (as a non-American) but certainly not the reason for the structural issues and the split in political camps. A symptom perhaps and a predictable one I believe.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

The President is basically the head of law enforcement in the federal government. Police organizations in the USA have a long history of pushing the limits of what is Constitutional. After all, they just want to get their job done and leave it up to the judiciary to decide what is Constitutional.