4 ms·

Or, more charitably: the Supreme Court has says that the president has this authority, in this specific area, and your characterization of this as "breaking the

by timr 1y ago

Or, more charitably: the Supreme Court has says that the president has this authority, in this specific area, and your characterization of this as "breaking the law" is not correct. Edit: actually, even that is overstating it. This is an extremely narrow ruling that is mainly about the powers of federal judges. It's the sort of ruling that the "other side" will trumpet as settled law when they're the ones in power again.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Less charitably, the Supreme Court has said that this president has this authority. Forgive student loans? No authority! End birthright citizenship? Well, he's the boss!
- timr 1y ago
  That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.
  - watwut 1y ago
    That is actually what is going on and how right wing justices think.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution. It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.
    - timr 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Of course there isn't. There's no written rule that the boss's son is gonna get the cushy VP slot, but everyone knows it. Where was SCOTUS when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor issued all his nationwide injunctions?
        timr 1y ago
        Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]: > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said. Call me a crazy, glass-half-full centrist, but I prefer to look at this as a clawing back of extremely broad powers from rather partisan judges. It's been maddening that circuit court judges in a few hyper-partisan districts basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. [1] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenship-decision-ef2c039f?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenshi...
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining… Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it. > It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. It is. This sort of thing should've died before ever becoming an EO, and at every level of the judiciary as clearly unconstitutional. That it didn't is a big problem.
        timr 1y ago
        Well, if we're predicting the future, here's mine: since they're already basically telegraphing it (and also because it's pretty clear-cut), I predict that they'll overturn the whole thing in a future case, and then the left will be crowing about how mean-ol Mr. Trump was taught a lesson in capital-D Democracy by our powerful system of government.
    - xienze 1y ago
      The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
        xienze 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
  - arunabha 1y ago
    No? Both are unilateral executive orders.
teraflop 1y ago
The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. What they have actually done is to put very stringent requirements on how the president's authority can be challenged in lower courts. And notably, exactly the same Republican-nominated Supreme Court judges did not do anything to interfere with exactly the same legal process (nationwide injunctions) when they were aimed at a Democratic president. See, e.g. Biden's student loan forgiveness executive order.
- timr 1y ago
  > The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. Yep, agreed. I already added an edit saying exactly the same thing.
- tiahura 1y ago
  Because they weren’t challenged on that basis.
  - joshuamorton 1y ago
    They were. "C. The District Court’s Remedy Was Improper" is a section of the petition for cert in The mifeprestone case from the Biden admin[0], where the SC overruled the district court's PI, but declined to address the question of whether it's PI was reasonable. [0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-235.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/...
burkaman 1y ago
I think that comment is referring to Trump v. United States, where the court said that a president cannot be held accountable for using a Constitutional authority to break the law. It is very literally "a blank mandate to break the law". For example, a president is granted authority to command the military and issue pardons. They have absolute immunity for any act performed using these authorities, including illegal acts such as assassinating or deporting a political opponent or accepting bribes in return for pardons. This is not a matter of opinion or a controversial interpretation, these consequences were discussed during the case and in the opinion, and the court accepted them.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  This was also discussed in the Constitutional Convention, where the participants decided the impeachment process, and failing that, four-year terms, were a sufficient remedy.
  - tshaddox 1y ago
    Surely the President could simply prevent congresspeople from voting to impeach via various means.
    - Amezarak 1y ago
      Sure, that was a concern: a sufficiently large faction of Senators might combine to protect a bad President, or destroy a good one unjustly. > Mr. MADISON, objected to a trial of the President by the Senate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misdemeanor. The President under these circumstances was made improperly dependent. He would prefer the Supreme Court for the trial of impeachments, or rather a tribunal of which that should form a part. > Mr. PINKNEY disapproved of making the Senate the Court of impeachments, as rendering the President too dependent on the Legislature. If he opposes a favorite law, the two Houses will combine agst. him, and under the influence of heat and faction throw him out of office. Ultimately it was decided that "in four years he can be turned out", so it was not worth addressing further. Indeed some argued that the President should not be impeachable at all because of this. > Mr. KING expressed his apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive & Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the case, if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary therefore that a forum should be established for trying misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good behaviour? The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature: Like them particularly the Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6 years he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good behaviour, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised. But under no circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.
anigbrowl 1y ago
The grandparent comment refers to a ruling from last year about Presidential immunity.
KoolKat23 1y ago
And the 14th amendment right to equal protection clause?

by timr 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

Less charitably, the Supreme Court has said that this president has this authority. Forgive student loans? No authority! End birthright citizenship? Well, he's the boss!

timr 1y ago
That's nice rhetoric, but they're not the same issue at all.
- watwut 1y ago
  That is actually what is going on and how right wing justices think.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Yes, there's always some reason it's different when Dems are President with this crew. You're right, though, it is different; birthright citizenship is spelled out, very clearly, in the Constitution. It's an even plainer wrong. It's Calvinball.
  - timr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Of course there isn't. There's no written rule that the boss's son is gonna get the cushy VP slot, but everyone knows it. Where was SCOTUS when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_O%27Connor issued all his nationwide injunctions?
      - timr 1y ago
        Well, that's very cynical and maybe you'll be right, but for now the California AG agrees with me. Per a quote in the WSJ [1]: > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining: Red states, which sought universal injunctions to stymie Biden administration policies, would encounter obstacles pursuing that strategy under a future Democratic president, he said. Call me a crazy, glass-half-full centrist, but I prefer to look at this as a clawing back of extremely broad powers from rather partisan judges. It's been maddening that circuit court judges in a few hyper-partisan districts basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. [1] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenship-decision-ef2c039f?mod=hp_lead_pos3 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/scotus-birthright-citizenshi...
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        > California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a co-plaintiff, looked for a silver lining… Sure, and Susan Collins thinks Trump "learned his lesson" with his first impeachment. Looking for the silver lining is what we sometimes call "cope". He lost. As a politician, he's obliged to put some spin on it. > It's been rather maddening that circuit court judges basically push every decision to the Supreme Court. It is. This sort of thing should've died before ever becoming an EO, and at every level of the judiciary as clearly unconstitutional. That it didn't is a big problem.
        timr 1y ago
        Well, if we're predicting the future, here's mine: since they're already basically telegraphing it (and also because it's pretty clear-cut), I predict that they'll overturn the whole thing in a future case, and then the left will be crowing about how mean-ol Mr. Trump was taught a lesson in capital-D Democracy by our powerful system of government.
  - xienze 1y ago
    The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
      - xienze 1y ago
        [flagged]
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
- arunabha 1y ago
  No? Both are unilateral executive orders.

teraflop 1y ago

The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. What they have actually done is to put very stringent requirements on how the president's authority can be challenged in lower courts. And notably, exactly the same Republican-nominated Supreme Court judges did not do anything to interfere with exactly the same legal process (nationwide injunctions) when they were aimed at a Democratic president. See, e.g. Biden's student loan forgiveness executive order.

timr 1y ago
> The Supreme Court has pointedly not ruled or said that the president has the authority to redefine birthright citizenship. Yep, agreed. I already added an edit saying exactly the same thing.
tiahura 1y ago
Because they weren’t challenged on that basis.
- joshuamorton 1y ago
  They were. "C. The District Court’s Remedy Was Improper" is a section of the petition for cert in The mifeprestone case from the Biden admin[0], where the SC overruled the district court's PI, but declined to address the question of whether it's PI was reasonable. [0]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-235.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/...

burkaman 1y ago

I think that comment is referring to Trump v. United States, where the court said that a president cannot be held accountable for using a Constitutional authority to break the law. It is very literally "a blank mandate to break the law". For example, a president is granted authority to command the military and issue pardons. They have absolute immunity for any act performed using these authorities, including illegal acts such as assassinating or deporting a political opponent or accepting bribes in return for pardons. This is not a matter of opinion or a controversial interpretation, these consequences were discussed during the case and in the opinion, and the court accepted them.

Amezarak 1y ago
This was also discussed in the Constitutional Convention, where the participants decided the impeachment process, and failing that, four-year terms, were a sufficient remedy.
- tshaddox 1y ago
  Surely the President could simply prevent congresspeople from voting to impeach via various means.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    Sure, that was a concern: a sufficiently large faction of Senators might combine to protect a bad President, or destroy a good one unjustly. > Mr. MADISON, objected to a trial of the President by the Senate, especially as he was to be impeached by the other branch of the Legislature, and for any act which might be called a misdemeanor. The President under these circumstances was made improperly dependent. He would prefer the Supreme Court for the trial of impeachments, or rather a tribunal of which that should form a part. > Mr. PINKNEY disapproved of making the Senate the Court of impeachments, as rendering the President too dependent on the Legislature. If he opposes a favorite law, the two Houses will combine agst. him, and under the influence of heat and faction throw him out of office. Ultimately it was decided that "in four years he can be turned out", so it was not worth addressing further. Indeed some argued that the President should not be impeachable at all because of this. > Mr. KING expressed his apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive & Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the case, if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary therefore that a forum should be established for trying misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good behaviour? The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature: Like them particularly the Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6 years he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good behaviour, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised. But under no circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great security for the public liberties.

anigbrowl 1y ago

The grandparent comment refers to a ruling from last year about Presidential immunity.

KoolKat23 1y ago

And the 14th amendment right to equal protection clause?