In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court had blocked the Trump Administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an “arbitrary and capricious” change. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal judges, ruled that Trump’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It was another self-inflicted wound due to a poorly executed policy change in this area. The ruling is based on procedural failures, not the merits or the underlying authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority ruled that
“the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that any such errors were irrelevant because the underlying policy was facially unlawful”
“Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda,. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration un- less the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”
What I find the most interesting is PART IV where Roberts was supported by only three justices (with the omission of Justice Sotomayor). That section rejected the use of President Trump’s public statements as proof of racial animus. The language rejects such reliance by lower courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit.
None of these points, either singly or in concert, establishes a plausible equal protection claim. First, because Latinos make up a large share of the unauthorized alien population, one would expect them to make up an outsized share of recipients of any cross-cutting immigration relief program. … Were this fact sufficient to state a claim, virtually any generally applicable immigration policy could be challenged on equal protection grounds.
Second, there is nothing irregular about the history leading up to the September 2017 rescission. The lower courts concluded that “DACA received reaffirmation by [DHS] as recently as three months before the rescission,” 908 F. 3d, at 519 (quoting 298 F. Supp. 3d, at 1315), referring to the June 2017 DAPA rescission memo, which stated that DACA would “remain in effect,” App. 870. But this reasoning confuses abstention with reaffirmation. The DAPA memo did not address the merits of the DACA policy or its legality. Thus, when the Attorney General later determined that DACA shared DAPA’s legal defects, DHS’s decision to reevaluate DACA was not a “strange about-face.” 908 F. 3d, at 519. It was a natural response to a newly identified problem.
Finally, the cited statements are unilluminating. The relevant actors were most directly Acting Secretary Duke and the Attorney General. As the Batalla Vidal court acknowledged, respondents did not “identif[y] statements by [either] that would give rise to an inference of discriminatory motive.” 291 F. Supp. 3d, at 278. Instead, respondents contend that President Trump made critical statements about Latinos that evince discriminatory intent. But, even as interpreted by respondents, these statements—remote in time and made in unrelated contexts— do not qualify as “contemporary statements” probative of the decision at issue. Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 268. Thus, like respondents’ other points, the statements fail to raise a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus.
The decision is already being misrepresented as a ruling on the merits or a rejection of the underlying claims of illegality. It is not.
Here is the opinion: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
John Say et al. — A survey of thought about free will:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
I leave this, from Aristotle onwards, to you as tonight is already latening, and my will is no longer free of the need to sleep, hmmm?
I read a bit. maybe I will read more later.
It is from stanford – that gives me pause to start. I have nephew who is a plato scholar and TA/Doctoral candidate at Stanford. I am not impressed by stanford.
I was also not impressed by the introduction.
I would note that law and the social contract require Freewill – if your choices aren’t your own – how can you be held acountable for them ?
It you do not have free will – what purpose does law serve ?
Frankly I am less interesting in Stanford’s opinions on the nature of free will than I am on anyone’s idea of how you can have anything without it
There are philosophical traditions without free will.
They are extremely unappealing.
The statue of Marion Barry, disgraced former Mayor of Washington DC, offends me, as it should everyone in their right mind. I’ve asked ‘the rioting mob’ to put it on their hit list of statue knockdowns.
Anonymous – Marion Barry offends me and if someone would like to knock him down I would be grateful. 😉
Why didn’t the original DHS Memorandum cite the DACA cutoff as a motivation to get Congress to legislate on the issue? Why didn’t it cite the March 5, 2018 deadline extending DACA protections in order to give Congress 6 months to pass legislation?
These were the political process. Does anyone think the Courts would have been more deferential to the political process (getting Congress to take responsibility) had that been in the case file?
DACA is illegal. Even SCOTUS said so.
The executive does not have to apply to kill an illegal program.
It does not need approval.
Contra Roberts it does not need a reason beyond that the program is illegal.
The APA does not apply as congress did not create DACA.
But even if it did the requirements were met.
Way too many here are pushing this stupid argument that DOJ/DHS screwed up.
As if you need special permission to stop violating the constitution.
Roberts misconstrues the role of the Courts.
Trump needs to cite NOTHING to kill DACA.
The burden was on the states challenging the DACA recision.
Frankly they do not have standing. The claim they experienced losses was ludicously stupid and never should have been accepted.
No state has a right to a non-benefit that is not legal.
There is no benefit specifically to a state from a Dreamer that belongs to the state by right.
Regardless the burden was on the states to prove that DACA was legal.
They failed.
EOS
John say, you obviously need to read the opinion itself. It states exactly why you’re wrong on your assertions.
SCOTUS didn’t rule DACA illegal. That was not the issue they were deciding on.
The Chief Justice explicitly states that the issue before the court is about whether DHS properly followed procedure in its attempt to end DACA.
The APA does indeed apply because DHS made the argument that DACA’s recission was unreviewable under the ADA and the courts had no jurisdiction.
DHS asserts that DACA is a non-enforceable policy, but according to Heckler vs. Chaney non-enforceable policies are reviewable under ADA.
Read the paragraph on page 11 and you’ll see why ADA applies.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
“…men…may do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Federalist 78
SCOTUS must have declared Obamacare and DACA void.
That was and is its duty.
SCOTUS failed to do its duty.
SCOTUS failed to support and uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In so far as the principles which the SCOTUS upheld were not of the Constitution but of the Communist Manifesto, the SCOTUS consists of traitors who have committed treason by adhering to the enemy and giving him aid and comfort.
“SCOTUS didn’t rule DACA illegal. That was not the issue they were deciding on.”
The majority opinion accepts the 5th circuits opinion that DACA is unconstitutional.
It does so both explicitly an implicitly.
Even SCOTUS can not completely ignore the lower courts oppinion – if it does not reject it, then it accepts it.
I would note that the Trump administration is moving forward imediately to end DACA “Again”.
They may well do nothing differently than they did previously.
“The Chief Justice explicitly states that the issue before the court is about whether DHS properly followed procedure in its attempt to end DACA.”
Nope – the constitutionality is ALWAYS before SCOTUS – it can not duck it.
“The APA does indeed apply because DHS made the argument that DACA’s recission was unreviewable under the ADA and the courts had no jurisdiction.”
To the extent this is an argument, it is an argument that the APA does not apply.
Your argument that the APA applies specifically because the administration says it does not is pure idiocy.
If the administration said that the ADA (american’s with disabilities act) did not apply – that would not make the ADA apply.
“DHS asserts that DACA is a non-enforceable policy, but according to Heckler vs. Chaney non-enforceable policies are reviewable under ADA.”
Have you bothered to read Heckler vs Chaney ?
SCOTUS determined in a case where the APA did apply that the FDA’s choice to not enforce a law was not reviewable by the court.
HvK woulds the OPPOSITE of what you are claiming.
Further it would not apply regardless, because the that actions involved were founded in legislation – with the APA applies to.
“Read the paragraph on page 11 and you’ll see why ADA applies.”
The ADA is the americans with disabilities act.
Why do I wish to read another of Roberts stupid one off decisions that produces an outcome without actually deciding anything.
If the APA applies to unitary actions of the executive then the APA is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
It is that simple. Congress can not rewrite the constitution. It can not take away or restrict the powers that the constitution gives exclusively to the executive.
Do courts consider the impact of legislation? The evaluation should be based on whether or not the legislation is constitutional and that proper procedures were followed in passing the legislation.
Suppose Congress passes a law about flood control, and opponents say the law will destroy 10,000 homes. Should that be a factor in how a court rules, even if Congress has the authority to pass to the law, proper procedures were followed and the law is constitutional?
You raise interesting issues – and one this SCOTUS decision does touch on.
If the Constitution is offended – following procedure does not matter.
The government may not violate your rights simply by following procedure.
One of the claims raised By Roberts is that DACA created rights for Dreamers – this is a part of the rationale that the APA had to be followed.
That is an important question – if government gives you something you are not otherwise entitled to – does that create some right that is violated when that thing is rescinded ? interesting question – but also incomplete. When government gives you something it must take something from some one else to do so.
Rights are not zero sum commodities..
Would you explain how you arrived at that opinion.
Yeah, didn’t believe you could explain that tripe.
Rights are those aspects of a persons property, and liberty that can not be interfered with involuntarily without justification.
The social contract literally is for the sole purpose of protecting those rights,
While not absolutely inviolable, there are required to be very nearly so – another area our courts have F’d up.
Our founders were not equivocal on this.
Regardless, it does not matter whether those seeking to infringe on a right are some stranger with a gun, or our government – they may not do so without justification.
The wish of the majority is required to infringe on a right but it is NOT sufficient.
You are correct – rights are not zero sum. They are the only real entitlements that exist.
You do not need to earn a right, and what is yours by right can not be taken from you easily. Not by thieves, not by government.
A right is what can not be taken from you by others – including government, merely because they want to.
Human societies grant and enforce rights. Absent human societies, rights do not exist.
“Human societies grant and enforce rights. Absent human societies, rights do not exist.”
If free will exists, rights exist. Rights are not created.
If you wish to pretend free will does not exist – then you should look into the consequences of that – they are not likely appealing to you.
Regardless, my fundimental point is that the arguments you are making – that rights do not exist or are a manufactured construct – those ideas have consequences – and you will not like them.
If rights do not exist – why is racism bad ? Why is anything bad ?
Ideas actually matter a great deal.
You can try to construct humanity on any philosophical basis you wish,
But the vast majority of ways of doing so do not work at all.
And of the few remaining very few work well.
It is actually quite important that the morality, philipsophy and ideology that we construct society on work well.
All opinions are not equal. All ideas are not equal, all philosophies are not equal.
You do not just get to make things up.
You claim rights do not exist.
Very well, what stops me from putting an axe through your skull ?
Why have we decided that is a bad idea ?
If you have no rights, what is your life, your happiness worth ? Nothing.
Ideas have consequences.
You seem not to grasp that.
Rights exist. They are social constructs with impact on the real world. They do not exist apart from social agreement and enforcement.,Free will exists in the common sense of the term.
“Rights exist. They are social constructs with impact on the real world”.
Still selling crack, I see.
if they are merely a social construct – there existance depends on the whim of the majority – that is what a social construct means.
Of course they have impact on the real world – Ideas matter – alot. Good ideas, ones consistent with reality have positive impacts. Stupid ideas have negative impacts.
Ideas matter and they have consequences – and the are not equal.
“They do not exist apart from social agreement and enforcement.”
Of course they do. Even Hobbs noted that. Human rights exist in the sate of nature.
Absolutely the social contract matters – its purpose as noted in the declaration is to SECURE rights – BTW you can not enforce something that does not exist.
Regardless the social contract does not create rights it secures them.
I would further not that this is not merely about “social agreement” – if it were anyone could say – “I do not agree” and opt out.
“Free will exists in the common sense of the term.”
God forbid you should speak clearly rather than obfuscate.
Again ideas are important. Say clearly what you mean. That allows others to criticise, that is how ideas improve – in the crucible of argument.
Regardless, if free will exists, then rights exist.
How can you be free to choose, without having the means to effectuate your choices ?
How can you have “free will” – the choice to speak you mind, without the right to do so ?
BTW, this argument is ancient – and you lost more than 100 years before either of us were born.
But I am guessing you are not especially familiar with history or philosophy.
Nothing I have said means what you imply it does.I believe in ethical decisions and objective reality. Racism is bad because logically it is cruel to fellow humans and counterproductive to societal goals. Any morality beyond the golden rule which most animals practice within their specie, is like rights, a human construct. We decide what is right and wrong by virtue of our intelligence and humanity. We need to grasp that fact, and take the responsibility – there is no alternative because we invented gods as well.
First I want to credit you with engaging in a a discussion – a real debate. argument.
“Nothing I have said means what you imply it does.”
I am not implying. I am saying directly – ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences.
“I believe in ethical decisions and objective reality.”
How do you know what is ethical ?
Do you think that Hitler thought he was not ethical.
Eichman’s defense when he was tried in Israel was that his actions were ethical.
Ideas have consequences – you do not get to run from them.
“Racism is bad because logically it is cruel”
Hurricanes are cruel.
Regardless, why do you think racism is inherently cruel ?
Just to be clear – I am not advocating racism. I am asking you to defend the proposition that racism is bad – without referencing natural rights rather than rights as a social construct – you can not do it.
I have had to hire people. I typically get between a couple of dozen and 100 applicants for a position. I rarely have only one job.
How is it uniquely cruel to take every applicant that is black – and discard them ? Or female ? Or Jewish ? or Gay ? or any other form of discrimination.
I have only one job. I am going to be “cruel” to 99 people no matter what.
As a practical matter they is no way in the world with 100 applicants I am going to get the “best person for the job”. In fact I do not even try. I have 100 applications to go through and not alot of time to do so. My goal is not to waste a week hiring the best person – which I would fail at anyway, but to get rid of 90% of the applications and focus on a mall number I will look at more closely.
I will circular file your application for tiny reasons – your gramar is off, I do not like the type face you used, your application is too long, too short. or it does not appeal to me for reasons I can not express. Regardless 90 apps go in the circular file.
Thats cruel. But it is happening no matter what.
So given that I am getting rid of most applications for pretty meaningless and cruel reasons. Why can’t I get rid of yours because you are black or …. ?
Make the argument. Explain to me why making a decision that is fundimentally arbitrary is acceptable for one stupid reason and not another ?
“to fellow humans and counterproductive to societal goals.”
The goal of the Nazi’s was to exterminate jews.
Sounds like a societal goal to me ?
What are these goals you claim racism is counter to ? Where do they come from ?
Why are the goals you want better than those the Nazi’s wanted ?
You have not come close to any argument that provides a foundation for morality.
“Any morality beyond the golden rule”
The golden rule – as anything beyond an individual construct is actually immoral.
It fails Kant. You can not apply it universally.
If each of us gives what we have to others, No one has anything and no one is interested in improvement.
Regardless, no form of positive obligations – no duty to act, can ever been more than an individual construct. Because globally it fails.
There are 360m people in the world who want to come the the US – can they all come ? NOW ? Can they all demand the benefits that US residents have ?
Or flip it – why shouldn’t by your definition of morality americans not just provide M4A to other americans – why are we not obligated to provide it to the world ?
After all health care is a human right ?
“which most animals practice within their specie”
Outside of mammals there is no evidence of self awareness or free will and therefore no rights. even most mammals are far below humans in self awareness or free will.
“We decide what is right and wrong by virtue of our intelligence and humanity.”
How do we decide – what is the fundimental criteria ?
Is it arbitrary ?
“We need to grasp that fact, and take the responsibility – there is no alternative because we invented gods as well.”
Again – your still do not have a foundation. Also you seem to think that free will requires religion
If you can not manage racism – why is murder immoral ?
John, again you make it very difficult to engage . Focus.
The Golden Rule does dictate selfless behavior, but reciprocity.
Hiring people performed properly and absent other issues – one specific applicant will die if you hire another – is a functional, not ethical problem.
Hitler’s goals were not valid societal goals, they were destructive to his society and more importantly to human society. We have advanced into civilization through scientific and ethical progress and we know anti-Semitism or any racism violates civilized ethics for obvious reasons I won’t bother to cite. The entire human race, with a few outliers, accepts this tenet now and we know it is correct.
With a few shocking exceptions like ISIS, from which the world recoiled in horror, public be-headings and torture are no longer SOP for the leaders of even Christian nations. That’s progress and a large part of why we have a functioning global society and economy. Hitler and Idi Amin could argue about this behavior, but they would be wrong and almost all humans know it. That’s as sure as you’re going to get because it’s reality. There is no stone tablet or super natural being who has deigned to speak directly to us, and if they did, we’d still have the moral responsibility to accept or reject his/it’s edicts – sacrifice our 1st born? F..k you!
It is late and a long reply got deleted accidentally.
I would ask you re-read your argument and tell me how I can tell based on it that murder is wrong, that genocide is wrong.
We have spent atleast 7000 years working on these problems nad has come up with some pretty good answers.
I would hope you were familiar with some of them ?
I agree we have come up with pretty good answers. We did that.
“I agree we have come up with pretty good answers. We did that.”
But you are unable to say what those are.
Si why should I ever trust you with power over the lives of others ?
John,
A true acceptance of the existence of natural rights is problematic for political reasons. It would require the vast majority of society to reject most of today’s politicians. We as a culture are not anywhere near that degree of enlightened thought. We’re somewhere between the end of the Seven Years War and the DoI. We are compiling another list of grievances, but as a society, we haven’t yet identified who or what is the cause of our suffering. We’ll get there, but the question remains on whether it will be correctable peacefully or otherwise.
I am trying to get BTB to commit to anything.
With respect to you “natural rights” are actually derivative.
The foundation is free will. Without it morality does not exist,
John,
I had asked my Pastor years ago the following: If everything is all part of God’s plan, and God knows everything that will occur until the end of time, why does God get angry when man screws up? He took a long pause and said: Free Will.
I believe there are 3 elements here to consider: 1. Human nature. 2. Natural rights. 3. Free will. All 3 come into existence at the same time.
You can not reject free will without ending up with a scheme that few would willingly choose – not left, or right.
The entire concept of morality requires free will.
Anyone debating that A is immoral and B is moral – has defacto accepted free will as there is no moral/immoral without free will.
I am deliberately keeping good out of my debate as god is not necescary – also a consequence of free will.
Rights also proceed from free will.
You can not have rights without free will or free will without rights.
On the tangent we have gotten into here, that is why animals have few if any rights – they do not have free will.
But free will is what I have offered as a foundation for morality.
I have asked BTB and others for theirs. They have provided NOTHING.
That is important. How do you trust someone with even the slightest power if they have no moral principles or foundation ?
Rights also proceed from free will.
You can not have rights without free will or free will without rights.
You state Rights proceed from free will and then state you cannot have free will without Rights. This is why I said free will and Rights come into existence at the same time.
I am not looking to argue with you. I doubt we disagree.
My point is just that the foundation is actually free will.
Getting that as the foundation is important for innumerable reasons.
You can not have morality without free will.
Free Will has significant meaning philosophically.
Rights are more limited than free will.
If you accept that free will exists it can not actually be taken away.
Though you can prevent people from acting on it.
Free will is not the same as free choice – you can take away the latter not the former.
Anyway the relations between these matter, Because free will either exists or it does not.
It is near universally accepted that it does, and you have free will even if you do not have rights.
you have free will even if you do not have rights.
Enjoy your free will when you are stripped of all your rights. Oops, sorry. You won’t even have the right to enjoy not having any rights.
You are correct, but that does not change the fact that Free will is the root.
Rights are not.
Free will is the root natural right. It’s the security of these rights that is a social construct. How well these rights are secured is not what defines unalienable. Our free will, morality and ethics motivate a culture towards more or less security of these rights. Unalienable doesn’t mean these rights cannot be alienated. It means regardless of how a culture’s ethics and morality motivates their free will to secure or infringe the right, the right still remains.
Racism is bad because logically it is cruel to fellow humans and counterproductive to societal goals.
Without the foundation of natural rights, racism is not cruel logically, it’s cruel subjectively. In your world, society would be logically just to have slavery, because free labor permits the rest of society to reallocate resources to more important endeavors that benefit society. And with 7 billion people all seeking limited resources, it would also be logical to cull societies of any members not positively contributing to the wellbeing of society. Morally this is a shocking and outrageous thing to consider. Only a monster would want that. But unfortunately, this is exactly what human nature has proven not only capable, but willing to do to other humans.
As we’ve seen over the last 400 years, the barrier of morality and ethics to human imposed suffering has been no match for human nature. Slavery still exists. Genocide still exists. Immortality and unethical activities are commonplace, even in the most advanced of cultures. Is that logical? How does that benefit the common good? What if the limits of human behavior went unchecked by society, how long would it take for social order to return to the conditions preexisting organized society?
Your understanding of natural rights is actually a rejection of the DoI, Bill of Rights and constitution. In your world, there is no natural foundation for morality and ethics. There is nothing society cannot do as long as the majority agrees to it. If you’re rejection of natural rights is rooted in your denial of the existence of God, then you’re in luck. Natural rights exist merely because you exist. How you came into existence is a different conversation.
Olly, I am describing reality, you are describing what you wish was true. Yes, humans are capable of brutal and unjust acts, and if a “majority”, or the powers that be decide and act on making slavery exist agai, neither your natural rights or my modern consensus – which would no longer be the consensus – will stop it. That is why it is our responsibility to maintain and advance the progress humans have made toward a cooperative and ethical world. No other beings, or ideals will by themselves do the job for us.
I am describing reality, you are describing what you wish was true.
Book, that’s precisely the difference between the DoI and the constitution. What is important however is I don’t deny reality. The DoI wasn’t written to simply express wishful thinking. It is the principle foundation for everything else. It is the only justification for any people’s revolutionary cause. It’s the vision the framers had for us as a perfect union. Reality at the time showed a significant gap between it and perfection. The constitution was created in order that we can have a structure to bridge that gap. Reality doesn’t make the foundation any less true. All reality does is tell us how far we’ve come. Ironically, denying natural rights exist is exactly what tyrants want the people to believe. We ended that when this country was created. We’ve been slowly working on closing the above gap. Now what, regress back to believing we don’t have natural rights because they are insecure? Regress back to believing all rights come from government?
No BTB all you are doing is claiming on a case by case basis to know the right outcome for each decision.
You claim the foundations are obvious, but never express them.
If you decide what is right and wrong arbitrarily on a case by case basis, you can not distinguish yourself from Hitler, and you are arguably worse than ISIS – they atleast do have principles.
Is there anything logical in believing all rights come from man? Doesn’t that logically mean there is no such thing as The Golden Rule? Doesn’t the fact there are rules governing different societies prove human nature, if permitted, will dictate what is golden at any given time? How can there be golden rules without a standard for what is universally accepted as golden? What happens when you accept man as the final authority on what is golden? Is it logical to believe these authorities will bind themselves under their rules? If you accept this authority, then on what basis will you justify an objection when they change the rules? That’s right, none would exist. If you were still blessed by the authorities to have elections, you’d need to rely on a majority (mob rule) to restore the rights you desired. And if you did not have the majority, well then you’d just have to endure without any foundation for what you believe is justice.
I do not care where BTB says things come from.
I what him to identify the foundations of morality.
He claims it is obvious and not arbitrary, but will not own any actual principle.
That lease no means to distinguish him from hitler.
It is not even cruel subjectively.
Whether the metric for weighing good or evil is subjective or objective, absent a metric you do not even have subjective.
Olly, believing that we should all have inherent rights is the best we can hope for- in reality – and I agree we should.But believing that we do absent that ascent is a fantasy. A nice one, but a fantasy.
BTB – I have asked you for foundational principles for Morality.
Your speculation about rights does not address that.
If you wish anyone to trust you or those like you with power, you owe us your concept of morality in a form that allows us to predict your moral position in issues that we have not addressed.
John, you haven’t asked me what I consider the core beliefs of human values should be and largely are in the modern world. We have been discussing their basis only. You have arrived by yourself at the conclusion that I think ethics is strictly a case by case debate, though there is that too, even among idealists, which I assume you are.
I believe ethics and morality follow logically from agreement that human well being is our most shared value and that below that is sympathy and consideration for other sentient beings. The particulars are and always will be debatable.
“John, you haven’t asked me what I consider the core beliefs of human values should be and largely are in the modern world.”
Correct. If you can not express the principles on which they are based I have no interest in your values.
I do not doubt you have values – possibly even many good values. But values contradict with each others, and absent principles you can not resolve that conflict.
“We have been discussing their basis only. You have arrived by yourself at the conclusion that I think ethics is strictly a case by case debate, though there is that too, even among idealists, which I assume you are.”
Quit making assumptions. Idealism has nothing to do with this – that is a red herring.
I do not know what you think.
What I do know is that you are unable to express any principle or principles that one can use to determine whether you are trustworthy.
How do I decide if we can live together if I can not know that you will not murder me in my sleep or cheat me or steal from me ?
Is my only protection “the law” – and why can I trust that if given the power to do so, you will not change “the law” to allow you to murder, steal, of cheat ?
“I believe ethics and morality follow logically from agreement that human well being is our most shared value and that below that is sympathy and consideration for other sentient beings. The particulars are and always will be debatable.”
All sloppy sentimentality – nothing of substance.
The concept of law is inextricable from the concept of punishment. You do not seem to grasp that the social contract – the foundation of government, is and exchange of some rights and powers in return for protection for others. That protection requires the use of force to punish. That is what the rule of law means.
When you wish to act through government you are seeking to wield the power to PUNISH. To use force against others for violating the laws you make.
Some vague sense of sympathy is not sufficient basis to grant you that power.
I have sympathy for Jeffry Dauhmer. That does not mean I would not punish him.
Sympathy does not lead to any system of morality. If it did you would be able to show that.
You and others like you seek the power to make the laws that will bind us all.
Every public conflict today. The polarization of this country, is over your claim to that power.
For all your bitterness and rage at him – Trump is fundimentally a return to the status quo.
He was explict about what he would do as president – and that is precisely what he has tried to do.
Very little of Trump’s actions have outside of what he campaigned on, and those have been driven by outside events like C19.
Contra the nonsense of the left Trump is predictable, he is not authoritarian, he is not a tyrant. He may be uncouth, he may have an uncomfortable style, but he is not disruptive – he is a return to normal.
Trump is not the threat to the future – you are.
You seek to disrupt. We have protests and riots, we have CHAZ/CHOP/…
We have democratic platforms that make infinite promises.
We have progressives attempting to gain the reigns of power.
So why are you to be trusted with power ?
Why are you to be given control of the “men with guns”. Why are you to be trusted to decide who to punish ?
You wish to be given the power to punish – and you can not explain how you determine what is to be punished and what is not ?
You offer meaningless banalities about sympathy.
You want “social justice” – what does not mean beyond looting and burning and tearing down statutes ?
Why are progressives in power going to be any different than Jim Crow ?
You are the purveyors of identity politics, of cancel culture, of the supression of ideas and expression you do not like through nonsense like hate speech.
From antifa, to BLM, to AOC, to Pelosi, to Biden – there is no foundations that one can trust.
I do not see anything to distinguish you from the french revolutionaries, or the trostskyites, or the maoists, or Pol pot, or Amin or Chavez.
One of the characteristics of the left is that eventually everyone becomes “the enemy”.
We already have FaceBook and twitter punishing thought crimes.
Why are you to be trusted with power – any power at all.
Olly, it is a fact that the description of the golden rule is by humans, though it exists among virtually all animals which have social interactions.
Meanwhile John is demanding what he has previously not asked for, or delivered himself – first principles of ethics. Since I am being compared to Hitler, I think the discussion has taken a tun for the worse.
Above I described were I think it is obvious ethics and morality come from and also in very simple terms what I think their proper basis should be. Maybe John will offer where he thinks they spring from and what they are.
“Olly, it is a fact that the description of the golden rule is by humans, though it exists among virtually all animals which have social interactions.”
Nope.
“Meanwhile John is demanding what he has previously not asked for, or delivered himself – first principles of ethics”
But I have, repeatedly over and over.
You can not use force against the free will of another without justification.
There are several requirements for justification. We can discuss those, we do not even need to completely agree because even small agreement severely limits the use of force.
But most important – there is no exception for government force.
“Since I am being compared to Hitler”
Nope, I am saying that you are unable to distinguish your moral foundations from those of Hitler.
This BTW is typical of leftism – we are promised utopia, and when it turns to shit, it is because of bad leaders – not bad principles.
Yet these left schemes always end up with bad leaders. When do you consider than it might be your principles (or lack) that are the problem.
I do not think you are Hitler. But I do think that you can easily lead to a Hitler, because you have no principles to tell you when you are headed to hell.
Emotions will not do it, sympathy will not do it.
“I think the discussion has taken a tun for the worse.”
Discussions with those on the left usually do.
“Above I described were I think it is obvious ethics and morality come from and also in very simple terms what I think their proper basis should be. Maybe John will offer where he thinks they spring from and what they are.”
No you have not. You have not come close. You have offered meaningless banalities and fungible case by case examples.
You have offered nothing that is a basis for giving you power.
The simple principle I gave above can be used to construct the entire legal system, the entire system of government.
If it will not answer every question regarding law and the use of force – whatever it leaves unanswered is very small.
Conversely what little you have offered provides no criteria beyond emotion that defines why Hitler was immoral.
John, after attacking me for not stating first principles when we were discussing their origins, you here avoid stating your first principles or their origin, while then confusing ethics and morality with law. The latter is an imperfect application of hopefully well founded first principles you can’t bring yourself to state.
My first principles were simply stated and “sentimental” is not usually a word others associate with basic human rights.
You may be clever – may be – but you are as shallow the Great Salt Lake.
By the way, a simple “i am not an idealist” would have done.
“John, after attacking me for not stating first principles when we were discussing their origins, you here avoid stating your first principles or their origin, while then confusing ethics and morality with law. The latter is an imperfect application of hopefully well founded first principles you can’t bring yourself to state.”
Ni I have asked you for ANY principles, for morality. Getting first principles from you would be a bonus.
“My first principles were simply stated and “sentimental” is not usually a word others associate with basic human rights.”
You chose your own words. There is no substance to them. There is no ability to reason from what you claim are your principles to accurate predictions regarding your actions – especially your use of force.
You can tell with certainty from what i have said that murdering other or stealing from them is immoral. These are not situational, they are not subject to emotional reinterpretation.
I can not even tell from what you have claimed are principles that murder is immoral.
“You may be clever – may be – but you are as shallow the Great Salt Lake.”
This is not about me, it is about you. As I have noted, I am not looking to undermine the principles that government, law, morality rest on.
“By the way, a simple “i am not an idealist” would have done.”
Now you are telling me what to say ?
Whether I am an idealist – is irrelevant to the argument. Therefore it would not have been a proper response.
“I do not eat chocholate” is not a proper response to “here is some milk”
You talking to me?
Sounds like a recording.
John, please restate what you consider the source of human ethics and what briefly they are.
I have told you that humans in society are obviously the source for our ethics and morality, in all their flavors, and that is I think a clear irrefutable fact, and that absent their/our ascent, rights will not exist. I have also tried to state what I think our ethics and morality should be based on – and largely are in the modern secular world – by keeping it to the most simple and unifying principles, though I see this underlying most of our complex system. Clearly you either don’t understand this, or don’t want to and prefer taking unfounded potshots based on your preconceptions. Tell me what they are – repeat yourself if necessary as I have regularly told you I don’t read all of your overly verbose postings and may have missed the wheat mixed in with the chafe.
I have told you that humans in society are obviously the source for our ethics and morality, in all their flavors, and that is I think a clear irrefutable fact, and that absent their/our ascent, rights will not exist.
If ethics and morality are fluid, then according to you, so is what we have as rights. In reality, rights will always exist. What ebbs and flows with our ethics and morality is the security of rights.
“John, please restate what you consider the source of human ethics and what briefly they are.”
Have you yet provided a single principle as a source for law ethics anything ?
Why do I owe you what you provide no one ?
Regardless, I have already stated that free will and morality are intrinsic. If you have free will, you can derive all morality and ethics logically from that. If you do not have free will – there is no morality.
“I have told you that humans in society are obviously the source for our ethics and morality,”
That is not a principle. In fact it is meaningless.
Yes, human ethics would not exist without humans, and since ethics has to do with interactions between humans – society is also requisite.
But that answers no consequenctial questions.
“I think a clear irrefutable fact, and that absent their/our ascent, rights will not exist”
Nope – rights can exist perfectly fine even if there is only a single human.
“I have also tried to state what I think our ethics and morality should be based on – and largely are in the modern secular world – by keeping it to the most simple and unifying principles, though I see this underlying most of our complex system.”
But you have not – you have talked all arround ethics and morality. You have RARELY offered a Justice Potter Stewart – “I know morality when I see it”, but you have provided nothing that would enable one to know what you deem is morally correct on some issue that you have not already expressed an oppinion.
In otherwords you have offered feelings based examples of what you think it moral in specific instances.
But you have offered no principles.
You have entirely ducked any request for principles.
“Clearly you either don’t understand this, or don’t want to and prefer taking unfounded potshots based on your preconceptions. Tell me what they are – repeat yourself if necessary as I have regularly told you I don’t read all of your overly verbose postings and may have missed the wheat mixed in with the chafe.”
I have already provided you with a core Moral principle – it may not be the only one, but it is immutable.
That is the non agression principle. That covers pretty much the entire scope of government and the law.
But it does not speak to behavior that does not involve force or fraud between individuals.
You have pretended I have not provided that – though I have done so multiple times.
You have also ignored multiple requests from me – or provided non-answers.
I doubt you beleive murder is moral – but nothing you have said allows me to know that you don’t.
Just to be clear I do not want another list of things you think are moral and things you think are not.
I want the principles you use to determine what is moral and what is not.
I have shown you mine – where is yours.
John, I wrote 48 hours ago:
“I believe ethics and morality follow logically from agreement that human well being is our most shared value and that below that is sympathy and consideration for other sentient beings. The particulars are and always will be debatable.” I choose to not get more specific as human social organizations have taken many shapes and forms we can probably not fairly judge from an ethical position. That does not mean I won’t argue a position down to the last detail, or state that all realities are equal. I fully believe/accept that we modern humans have the best and most objective view of reality – unlike you, I don’t denigrate science and consider it the key to our explosion of success across the last several centuries – and surrender no ground on that.
I have also said that humans are the sole source and enforcement of this or any other value system, not gods or platonic ideals. I stand by that.
If you have a question about a particular issue, let’s hear it.
I don’t get where you think ethics and morality derive and what they stand on, but maybe I missed something in your overly long screeds. The existence of free will is an unchallenged assumption in the discussion though ultimately we may be found to be ruled by very complex algorithyms which AI will figure out. It’s moot as far as our discussion.
You did write those things.
None of them say anything meaningfull.
Can I tell from what you have written whether you opose or support laws banning large sugary drinks ? Ir selling loose cigarettes ?
I do not want answers to those questions – I want to know what are the principles the lead you to those answers.
My guess based on what you have said thus far is that you have none. That it is not possible to tell what you think is moral, legal, ….
that you have no clear principles.
That would not be unusual – most people do not.
But I bet every single one of our founders could answer this question.
I would further note that while the absence of expressible principles is not uncommon it is dangerous. Not just in government,
but in personal life.
St. James Comey has taken to lecturing us all on morality – but he has no moral center. His morality is self serving and situational.
The results of which are that he botched being FBI director horribly.
When you have not thought about underlying principles and you are faced with tough moral questions – it is much easier to persuade yourself to do the wrong thing.
Quite often the right thing is not popular, often it does not produce the right outcome either.
We have debated roberts decisions here frequently.
Nearly everyone in the country wants to find an accomodation for “the dreamers” – while as a practical matter the fact they have known no other country is actually irrelevant. They have no more right to be here than some child in egypt, and they will be less worse off if they are returned than had they never left their country of origen. Depriving someone of an oportunity that was never their by right is no a violation of negitive morality It can be a violation of positive morality – but everything violates positve morality.
Regardless my point is there is no actually a moral issue – unless you beleive in no borders or open borders.
But there is an emotional issue.
We have more empathy for the kid who has lived in the US all their lives that the kid in egypt.
guess what that means we are tribal and discriminatory and that is never going away.
When we favor Dreamers over kids elsewhere in the world we are discriminating based on a weak bond. That is not fundimentally different from racial or national discrimination.
Moving on. We all want to see an answer to the dreamers. But unless you are for open borders we also want to avoid being in that position again in the future.
The resolution to the dreamers problem rests with government – specifically congress. And both parties have failed.
But people are clear – they want the dreamers by huge majorities and they want border security by majorities, and they are even more willing to trade border security for the dreamers.
So why no deal ?
That is a moral question – mostly for democrats. I would suggest that the problem was not solved under Obama or Trump because democratic politicians feel that it is politically better for them as an open issue than to solve it.
That raises another societal problem. Contra the left – there is no real emerging democratic majority.
One of the most fundimental political problems the country faces is that voters on the right have higher expecations of those they elect than those on the left.
Those on the right expect results. Those on the left expect the expression of good intentions.
There is no price to democrats for not coming to a deal on DACA. So they did not come to a deal.
But back to the moral question.
Roberts could do the popular thing – and save DACA – or atleast appear to, he really accomplished nothing.
But he looked good to the left.
But lets assume he was actually able to “save DACA” and did and that was a good outcome.
But doing so he had to violate an important moral duty as a Justice.
He was obligated to apply the constitution and the law as written.
DACA was unconstitutional unless enacted by congress,
It was not moral for him to get the right outcome by failing to follow the constitutional requirements of his job.
BTW that applies to every other justice who voted for DACA.
Maybe you disagree – fine.
Provide moral principles that are immutable, and produce the results you want.
But the desired results must flow from the principle – not the other way arround.
Regardless, you refuse to do this.
All nine Supreme Court justices agreed that DACA is illegal. You won’t see that in the headlines though.
And that should be the end.
And in fact by doing so they have actually created a “constitutional crisis”.
The executive is not permitted to act unconstitutionally,
They are also not permitted to defy SCOTUS
It is currently not possible for Trump to act constitutionally.
It is this kind of mess you create when you ignore the constitution.
Trump will fast track another DACA cancellation through the court and we’ll find out if it’s finally time for us to…
John say, that position is actually wrong. All nine justices did not agree DACA is unconstitutional. The conservative justices say it without explanation of why it is.
The case before the justices was not about its legality. It was about the trump administration’s attempt to end it by proclaiming it illegal and trump signing an EO ending it. No court except one has ruled on the legality of Obama’s EO establishing DACA. That one court only “thinks” it might be illegal, but deferred ruling on it to let current arguments on the legality of trump order be dealt with first.
The problem starts when the trump administration simply declared it illegal/unconstitutional and ended it by EO. The law explicitly states that in order to end DACA the trump administration is required to how it is illegal and the reason for ending it. This is where the ADA. Causes problems for trump. DACA hasn’t actually been ruled illegal officially. Therefore the ADA is needed to end it.
Nobody as far as I know has explained clearly why it is illegal. Just simply saying it is doesn’t cut it. Even legal scholars aren’t sure if it is.
SCOTUS ruled correctly on this point. Justice Clarence Thomas, like trump, simply stated it was illegal without explanation of why. Chief Justice Roberts issuing the majority opinion was clearly paying attention to the actual issue before the court.
Nope the majority ruled 9:0 it was unconstitutional – read the opinion.
But then they went off and decided that as there were be a hardship to Dreamers that Trump still had to meet manufacturered criteria.
John say, the legality of DACA was not the question before the court. It was the legality of how they wanted to end it.
This is directly from the ruling.
“ The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency fol- lowed in doing so.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
They couldn’t actually rule on its legality because it was not the issue that was before them.
“John say, the legality of DACA was not the question before the court. It was the legality of how they wanted to end it.”
But it was, and they decided that 9:0 and they were required to stop there.
“They couldn’t actually rule on its legality because it was not the issue that was before them.”
You are saying the same thing as I am – but about different issues.
The constitutionality of DACA WAS before them – in multiple ways.
Constitutionality is ALWAYS an issue with SCOTUS.
Once they ruled DACA unconstitutional – the case was over no other issue remained properly before them.
“The case before the justices was not about its legality”
False
“It was about the trump administration’s attempt to end it by proclaiming it illegal and trump signing an EO ending it. ”
That is all that needed done. The burden was on those challenging closing it to prove it was not unconstitutional – they were unable to. SCOTUS ruled 9:0 DACA was unconstitutional
And THEN they decided Trump could not end it.
“No court except one has ruled on the legality of Obama’s EO establishing DACA.”
SCOTUS just did.
“That one court only “thinks” it might be illegal, but deferred ruling on it to let current arguments on the legality of trump order be dealt with first.”
Nope. I would further note that if there is an open court case challenging the constitutionality of DACA – then DACA is toast. SCOTUS just ruled it unconstitutional.
That court can decide that SCOTUS has decided the issue and rule that DACA is unconstitutional and must be closed.
You keep ignoring how bad this decision is. They found for Trump on just about every single issue. They found there was no evidence of Bias in the decision to close DACA. they found it was unconstitutional.
But then they decided that because part of DACA provided benefits to Dreamers. that Trump had to follow APA for no identifiable reason to end a benefit to DACA recipients that was never constitutional in the first place.
So that you are clear on this. As SCOTUS has ruled Trump could start deporting Dreamers tomorow – what he can not do is stop the benefits like Green Cards that Obama made them eligable for.
“The problem starts when the trump administration simply declared it illegal/unconstitutional and ended it by EO. The law explicitly states that in order to end DACA the trump administration is required to how it is illegal and the reason for ending it.”
Nope, there is no such law. There can be no such law. The constitution determines what is constitutional. The norm is that outsiders challenge the constitutionality of a law, and the govenrment defends the law.
But it does happen that executive decides a law is unconstitutional or illegal, and outsiders challenge that – that is what happened here. The states challenged Trump’s finding that DACA was unconstitutional. They actually lost. But SCOTUS decided that it did not matter that DACA was unconstitutional that Trump still had to follow a process that only applies to legislatively created programs. and that he had not – when in point of fact he had.
” This is where the ADA. Causes problems for trump.”
ADA is something else. This was APA and if does not apply. Congress can not make law to bind the president on actions he can do unilaterally.
The APA applies to the vast majority of executive actions – because there is very little the president can constitutionally do unilaterally. But DACA was created unilaterally.
Congress has to this day not passed DACA.
Just to show how nuts this ruling is – SCOTUS HAD to find DACA unconstitutional.
Because if it was constitutional – then CLEARLY APA would not apply – Obama did not follow APA to create DACA – because APA does not apply to unilateral executive actions.
SCOTUS is saying that DACA is unconstitutional because Congress had to approve it and did not. But because it exists, and because it should have required congress to create that APA applies to removing it.
That turns the constitution on its head.
This decision is just nonsense.
“DACA hasn’t actually been ruled illegal officially. Therefore the ADA is needed to end it.”
Nope. SCOTUS ruled 9;0 DACA is unconstitutional.
“Nobody as far as I know has explained clearly why it is illegal.”
Because it is outside the presidents constitutional authority.
Presidents do not make laws. Myriads on the left are frequently pointing our correctly that Trump does not have much of the power he says he does.
Neither did Obama. Executive orders are limited in scope to the unilateral constitutional power of the president DACA greatly exceded Obama’s constitutional authority.
At its simplest – the president can not make law, he can not create programs.
” Just simply saying it is doesn’t cut it.”
If you are president – actually that is enough. Ragardless, the legality issue is dead.
SCOTUS found DACA unconstitutional.
“Even legal scholars aren’t sure if it is.” Only those bending the constitution into a pretzel.
“SCOTUS ruled correctly on this point.”
Yes, they found DACA unconstitutional 9:0.
“Justice Clarence Thomas, like trump, simply stated it was illegal without explanation of why. ”
Nope Roberts and the rest to the court said why. Not that they needed to – it was clear as glass that it was outside the presidents powers.
I would note that unless you are bat $hit crazy you do not want SCITUS to rule DACA was legal – If so that would give the power to make law to the president – who right now is Trump.
“Chief Justice Roberts issuing the majority opinion was clearly paying attention to the actual issue before the court.”
Roberts and every other justice found DACA uncounstitutional.
The problem as Thomas points out is that the case was over – right then and there.
“ It is currently not possible for Trump to act constitutionally.
It is this kind of mess you create when you ignore the constitution.”
No, it’s the kind of mess you create when incompetent attempts at ending DACA fail.
DACA is unconstitutional.
You can pretend that SCITUS did not decide that – but the 5trh circuit did.
SCOTUS could overturn the 5th circuit but they did not.
Therefore you have SCOTUS ordering Trump to enforce a law that both the 5th circuit and SCOTUS has determined is unconstitutional.
You keep pretending the constitutionality was not before SCOTUS – but it was.
First because constitutionality is ALWAYS before SCOTUS
And 2nd because As is plainly noted in the majority opinion the rationale of DHS and DHS for rescinding DACA was that it was unconstitutional.
The most favorable oppinion to the left I have seen from a legal scholar that was not an idiot was that DOJ/DHS should just rescind DACA again. And that it should not take more than a day or two to do so.
While we will still get some stupid lower court granting a nationwide stay, that will likely be overturned quickly – because the current state of the law is that the courts have found DACA unconstitutional.
You keep claiming that SCOTUS did not find it unconstitutional. That is not true.
But there is no games you can play that alters the fact that the 5th Circuit DID,
And SCOTUS did not overturn the 5th circuit.
You are blind to the fact that this decisions CLEARLY does a single thing, It creates a very narrow delay in rescinding DACA.
It does so by burning the constitution, buy applying APA where it does not apply.
Roberts actually found for Trump on nearly every issue – he had to Trump was right.
Roberts “saved” DACA temporarily. by applying a law that has no application, and by ignoring that DACA is unconstitutional.
I would further note that the entire decision hinges quite litterally on the unconstitutional part of DACA.
Obama had the unitary authority to excercise prosecutorial discretion.
He did NOT have the authority to issue green cards, or grant quasi legal status to Dreamers.
This is unlikely to happen – but Trump STILL has the authority to deport Dreamers.
This is part of the absurdity of this decision.
Roberts has not addressed the fact that Trump can deport Dreamers.
The decision rests on the bizare claim that the APA applies because DACA give benefits to dreamers that can not be done without congress,
You keep saying that Roberts did not find DACA uncounstitutional – but he actually HAD to . It is not just the unconstitutional nature of DACA, but it is specifically the unconstituional nature of giving Dreamers benefits that Roberts relies on.
John,
From the WSJ:
The practical consequence of the ruling is that a President can create an unlawful policy without legislation from Congress, but a future President cannot lawfully undo it without first jumping through regulatory hoops that can take years. This an invitation for executive mischief, especially by Presidents at the end of terms. They’ll issue orders that will invite years of legal challenge if the next President reverses them.
Well golly. Perhaps President Trump should take that invitation to heart and begin issuing his own policy changes. Dan Bongino has a list of recommend orders for the President:
– National reciprocity for carrying firearms
– Cut the top tax rate to 20%
– Repeal Obamacare
– National school choice for every state
– National pro-life policies
That would be the consequence – if this decision had actual precedential value.
Like innumerable Roberts aoppinions this decision is DELIBERATELTY intended to have no precedential value.
Roberts himself could decide the opposite on a similar case.
This ruling was not constructed to answer any legal question.
If was designed to accomplish one thing – to stall rescinding DACA a bit.
John,.
The Court seemed to rule the non-enforcement policy of the Obama administration was within their authority, but the enforcement policy of the Trump administration was not, primarily because benefits were provided. I don’t believe those benefits were authorized by law nor did they flow through the APA. That would make the award of benefits and their removal equally arbitrary and capricious. And if one did not need APA to do it, then I don’t see the logic in requiring the other to follow APA.
While I sort of agree with you.
The FACT is this decision was custom crafted by Roberts.
The purpose of the decision was deliberately to NOT set precedent and not resolve any constitutional issues. Just to preserve the status quo for a few moments longer.
This decision – like many of roberts decsions will NOT be cited in the future. This decision is not a landmark.
It is abysmlally bad – I would argue DELIBERATELY abysmally bad.
Roberts himself wanted to make sure that both he and any future court can decide the next case down the road completely different.
There is no effort to establish anything in this decision.
This decision does precisely what SCOTUS is NOT supposed to do.
The Supreme court is NOT an appellate court. It is not the court of final appeal. There is no right for a case to reach SCOTUS.
SCOTUS’s most important role is to resolve constitutional controversies.
It does not exist to and should not take cases merely to resolve tiny issues.
Bad outcomes are preferable to SCOTUS wasting time on administrivia.
Others here keep saying that the constitutionality of DACA was not before the court.
BS. Read the decision. The Sessions and Niehlson determinations that DACA was unconstitutional were not merely the primary basis for Recision. they were atleast initially the ONLY basis.
Ivan– The Court will instantly strike down actual statutes it says are unconstitutional but needs lengthy administrative procedures to block an unconstitutional executive order. Turn off their air conditioning and heating to protect the planet or something. Drive them out of the building. As Obama said, they are just nine unelected people who maybe shouldn’t interfere with things like Obamacare.
The role of SCOTUS is to say no to government overreach.
They have pretty much zero role in sustaining anything.
The rest of federal government can do or not do as it pleases – within the bounds of what is constitutional.
John says, “ The role of SCOTUS is to say no to government overreach.”
Just as it is the role of SCOTUS to only decide on matters that are before them, not go beyond that as many here think they should in deciding whether DACA is legal or not.
Just as it is the role of SCOTUS to only decide on matters that are before them, not go beyond that…
Would that include not rewriting a law passed by Congress so they could rule a tax is constitutional, instead of ruling a penalty is unconstitutional?
And if I recall correctly, Roberts made the change because he wanted to maintain what he believed Congress and the President intended the law to do, instead of ruling on what was before the court.
So if Roberts followed his own precedent of ruling on what was intended rather than on what was presented, he would have sided with intent of eliminating an unconstitutional policy.
The constitutionality of DACA was not only before them, it was the very first issue.
And they decided it 9:0
And that is where they were required to stop.
Ivan, no they did not. They stated that the legality of DACA is questionable. They did not opine that it was in fact illegal.
Nobody has been able to post the exact phrasing of all justices saying it is illegal.
They accepted the decision of the 5th circuit that DACA was unconstitutional.
DACA is illegal.
DHS cannot implement and perpetrate an illegal program.
The Supreme Court committed flagrant insurrection.
America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.
President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”
President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”
DACA is a fantasy.
DACA is illegitimate.
DACA is unconstitutional.
DACA: Trump Was Operating In Bad Faith
Blaming Obama Took Priority
As Roberts’s ruling notes, when Trump’s Department of Homeland Security ended the program, it did so on the basis of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s declaration that the original action by Obama was illegal.
The crux lies in what Trump’s DHS did not do. And here’s where Trump’s bad faith comes in.
DACA can be divided into two pieces. One part defers the deportations of its recipients. The other part provides affirmative benefits to them, such as work permits.
The APA requires the administration to go through a good-faith procedure in making decisions of this kind. This would have entailed actually evaluating the impact of ending DACA and evaluating the alternative choices the administration had. This would have required it to consider, say, just ending the work permits while leaving in place the protections from deportations.
But the administration did not supply any “reasoned analysis” for why it didn’t take that course of action rather than the one it did take, the ruling notes. And it adds that the administration didn’t consider the interests of those who had come to rely on the program, which must be at least weighed in an administrative decision of this kind.
Instead, the ruling points out, the administration just relied on the notion that Obama’s original executive action was illegal to simply declare that it must be ended. Because the administration failed to take those other steps, the decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The key is why Trump and the administration took this easy way out.
Trump campaigned on ending DACA. But once in office, he realized the politics of ending it would be terrible (whatever pricks of conscience he felt for the dreamers are unknown). As the dreamers organized and drove home their sympathetic situation to the country, the politics only got worse.
Yet hard-liners such as adviser Stephen Miller wanted DACA ended. In early 2018, you may recall, Democrats offered Trump $25 billion for his wall in exchange for legalizing the dreamers, but Miller got Trump to walk away because it didn’t include big cuts to legal immigration. That’s not looking so clever now, is it?
Edited from: “In Big DACA Ruling, Trump’s Bad Faith Blew Up In His Face
Today’s Washington Post
The entire APA argument is horse pucky.
It is illogical garbage.
If DACA is illegal – then the APA does not apply.
And Sessions and DHS asserted that it was ilegal.
Before SCOTUS could do anything else they had to decide that.
They ignored it – that is error.
But even if DACA was legal.
The APA can only apply to its recision if it applied to its creation.
It did not.
Further the APA can not apply to actions that the executive takes on its own authority, not that of congress. DACA was not passed by congress. there is no APA nexus.
Finally Roberts did not make any ruling on the merits of the recision.
The one thing Kurtz is right about is that Roberts did not say – you can not do this.
He did not say – you can not do this for the reasons you offered.
He said I am going to elide what I must do first and consider the legality of DACA and pretend you never attempted to justify recision by asserting ilegality, and then I am going to ignore the two other reasons you made because they were made 2 months after recision and if I looked at them i would not be able to reach the outcome I want.
And every all this dodging and weaving, I am going to conclude that you offered no justification for your action (even though you actually offered 3) and I am going to void you action for fake procedural failures.
John say,
“ If DACA is illegal – then the APA does not apply.
And Sessions and DHS asserted that it was ilegal.”
Your argument here is flawed for one simple reason.
Sessions and DHS do not have the authority to declare something as illegal and act on that assertion. It has not been actually determined by the courts if DACA is indeed illegal.
Sessions or the DHS has not provided reasoning to show why they believe DACA is illegal. Since it has not been declared illegal DACA remains a “legal” program therefore the rules of APA apply.
Because the trump administration rushed to end the program without following ACA procedures the states pointing it out effectively put that issue before the court.
The irony in this is that conservatives claim Obama didn’t go thru the proper process to establish DACA and therefore it was illegal, but trump did the exact same thing and bypassed procedure for expediency and it too violated the law.
Obama’s EO may be illegal, but trump and conservatives couldn’t articulate a reason why it was while the states could articulate why trump’s EO was illegal.
>“ If DACA is illegal – then the APA does not apply.
>And Sessions and DHS asserted that it was ilegal.”
>Your argument here is flawed for one simple reason.
>Sessions and DHS do not have the authority to declare something as illegal and act on >that assertion. It has not been actually determined by the courts if DACA is indeed illegal.
False – multiple times. Sessions and DHS have the power to assert that something is ilegal. In fact they are obligated to do so. Further the claim that DACA is illegal alone meets roberts requirement for justification.
Further, I was unaware, but aparently the Roberts ruling CONCLUDED that DACA was illegal, and STILL determined that DHS could not kill it without another rationale.
That is just idiocy.
“Sessions or the DHS has not provided reasoning to show why they believe DACA is illegal. Since it has not been declared illegal DACA remains a “legal” program therefore the rules of APA apply.”
DACA is illegal – Obama said so BEFORE doing it. Courts have already concluded that – including SCOTUS
“Because the trump administration rushed to end the program without following ACA procedures the states pointing it out effectively put that issue before the court.”
There are no APA guidelines that apply to illegal programs.
There are no APA guidelines that apply to unilateral actions of the executive.
APA did not apply when DACA was created – because it was not created by congress,
It does not apply when it is ended.
“The irony in this is that conservatives claim Obama didn’t go thru the proper process to establish DACA and therefore it was illegal”
No DACA is not procedurally illegal (actually it is, but that is the least of its problems), it is outside the authority of the president.
What Roberts is saying is that Trump must keep a program that is outside of the presidents constitutional power to create in the first place, because he made a minor technical error following a procedure that does nto apply to executive actions.
“but trump did the exact same thing and bypassed procedure for expediency and it too violated the law.”
Not even close. Trump ended DACA because it was illegal – outside of the constitutional authority to create and maintain.
The only way that SCOTUS can act as they did was to find that DACA was actually constitutional – which they did not. They found it was not.
They have created a very odd situation. DACA is unconstitutional – even SCOTUS accepts that.
By his oath of Office – neither Trump nor anyone else in the executive can continue it.
Yet they have been ordered By SCOTUS to continue it.
Technically SCOTUS has created a constitutional crisis. Because there is nothing Trump can do that is not unconstitutional now.
“Obama’s EO may be illegal”
Nope, it IS unconstitutional
“but trump and conservatives couldn’t articulate a reason why it was ”
They did, and the courts have agreed. The president does not have the power to make immigration law completely on his own.
There are no secrets.
“while the states could articulate why trump’s EO was illegal.”
No they have not.
In fact the states have argued that DACA was legal, and THEIR arguments for why it is, are also why it is NOT subject to APA.
The states (and Obama DHS) went to a great deal of trouble to construct DACA such that they thought it relied entirely on executive power.
One of the largest claims of authority is that DACA is an act of prosecutorial discretion.
That claim is probably correct.
And if DACA was completely an act of prosecutorial discretion (it is not).
Then it would be legal, and it would not be reviewable by the courts.
BUT prosecutorial discretion is also entirely reverseable – and reversing it is NOT reviewable by the courts.
The Choice by Obama to not deport the Dreamers was within Obama’s unilateral constitutional authority. It is also in Trumps constitutional authority to reverse that.
Neither decision is reviewable by the courts.
DACA is unconstitutional because it also granted benefits to Dreamers.
That can only be done by Congress.
That was unconstitutional.
Obama did not follow the APA – because the APA does nto apply to executive actions.
Constitutional or not.
Trump prbably did follow the APA – contral roberts DHS and session provided a reason for rescinding DACA – unconstitutionality. It is the only reason needed.
The roberts decision is wrong on multiple levels.
This is not even a close call. This is making the law up as you go.
John,
All of this reminds me of two quotes the American people should fear if they ever expect to retain any security of rights.
Elections have consequences. It’s the political way for winners to tell losers: Tough luck, you lost. Get over it.
I’ve got a pen to take executive actions where Congress won’t, and I’ve got a telephone to rally folks around the country on this mission.
Add in the decision by the Robert’s court and what we have is no longer the rule of law. It’s no longer a country Of the People, by the People and for the People. It’s a skeleton of it’s former self. It has the appearance of a representative government, with elections that give it the appearance of legitimacy. But what this DACA decision should inform everyone is that any legislation enacted by Congress and passed into law is subject to the Executive’s discretion on whether they are going to enforce it. The Take Care clause has been flipped on it’s head. Robert’s court effectively told Congress that their legislative authority is not binding on the Executive the Court supports. The Executive branch, with support of the Judicial branch, now has the unconstitutional authority to ignore existing law and in fact write policy that defies the law because the Executive (with the blessings of the Judiciary), prefers something else. Another quote that modified describes this situation today:
Where Congress won’t act, I will. And I have the support of the Courts to do so.
Olly,
Nearly a turnkey totalitarian state.
Congress has been handing their responsibilities over to the executive for decades. They seem to only want the appearance of representation. It’s just official now. 🙁
PR,
It’s pretty remarkable that a President has to ask pretty please to undo an unconstitutional policy imposed by a previous President.
Olly,
Yes. Astounding. Dumbfounding.
Prairie, while we agree that presidential powers have increased relative to those of Congress since the end of the 19th Century especially – and were you similarly upset with Trump’s end run around the express intent of Congress on wall funding? – that does not translate into anything close to a totalitarian state. Both those branches are still elected, even if so imperfectly that the people’s choice did not become president twice in the last 16 years and the Congress is disproportional.
Perspective on history is mandatory if one wishes to not lose their mind and overreact. This is not exactly Europe in the 1930’s and while imperfect, still among the best forms of government with near maximum freedom, including protection of the rights of minorities.
were you similarly upset with Trump’s end run around the express intent of Congress on wall funding?
Did the President work within his constitutionally available powers to do so? If not, then as you’ve said before, contact your elected representatives and have him impeached. If he did, then also contact them to change the law.
Bythebook,
I am chagrined to say I missed how the wall was funded. It does matter how.
“This is not exactly Europe in the 1930’s”
You are right that is not exactly where we are. Hitler boiled his frogs quickly.
This measure essentially dems Executive orders to be legislative. I am surprised you seem to support this. Are you concerned what Trump could choose to do with this power?
DACA should go back to the House and Senate to be passed. There is broad support for it. If Trump doesn’t sign, they can 2/3 majority drive it through.
Deems, not dems.
The reason that Congress will not touch DACA is that from Day 1 of the Trump presidency Trump has been offering DACA for the wall.
House republicans and senate republicans will not vote for DACA without wall funding.
The Wall funding is critical
Once the wall funding is in the budget – as opposed to the games Trump is playing,
the funding will be near impossible to remove.
If Biden is elected – the wall stops dead in its tracks.
But if Trump trades DACA for the wall as a budget item. D’s will not be able to remove it later. and even after Trump is gone work on the wall will continue.
That is what this is all about.
John says, you keep saying all nine justices say DACA is illegal, but you cannot prove where in the opinion does it explicitly state it.
““Obama’s EO may be illegal”
Nope, it IS unconstitutional
“but trump and conservatives couldn’t articulate a reason why it was ”
They did, and the courts have agreed. The president does not have the power to make immigration law completely on his own.”
Cite the court opinjon explicitly stating that DACA is unconstitutional. Everybody complaining about this SCOTUS ruling keeps saying they said DACA is either illegal or unconstitutional, BUT nobody cites the relevant parts where it explicitly says so. The dissent by Clerance Thomas doesn’t articulate why DACA is unlawful other than saying it was DHS unilaterally making a decision to create a program to make it legal for children of undocumented immigrants.
The explanation of why it could be legal is explained in Robert’s opinion AND the Why it’s called DEFERRED ACTION for childhood arrivals.
This is about the executive branch’s power of prosecutorial discretion. They are DEFERRING ACTION which is legal and not a law. By setting conditions to qualify they are allowed some benefits as long as they abide by those conditions. it seem perfectly within the purview of the executive branch. There is a reason why many courts including SCOTUS say it’s legality is QUESTIONABLE meaning it may or may not be legal.
They confirmed that the 5th circuit found that DACA was unconstitutional
and they did not overrule them.
I would note that the specific bizarre mechanix of this decision actually require DACA to be unconstitutional.
If DACA was constitutional APA would not apply – it does not no matter what but Roberts logic is that because Obama created a benefit that required congress to grant – i.e. he acted unconstitutionally, that Trump was required to follow APA to rescind that benefit.
Roberts argues that it is the Benefit that makes APA apply. But the benefit can not exist without congress and that is why DACA is unconstitutional
Again – If Obama had the power to grant the benefit – then APA would not apply.
“Defered action” is just another label for “prosecutorial discretion”.
Obama had the absolute authority to decide not to prosecute “child arrivals”.
Prosecutorial discretion is not reviewable by the courts.
It is also no permanent. Obama could change his mind at any time.
As can Trump.
deporting/not deporting Dreamers is not the core of this case.
Not deporting them was constitutional. deporting them is also constitutional.
Neither involve the APA at all.
One Philadelphia DA decided not to prosecute Cosby. The next decided to prosecute him. That is who proprietorial discretion works.
The unconstitutional part of DACA is the benefits it confers on Dreamers. eligibility for green cards etc. Those are things only congress can do.
Trump has had the authority to deport dreamers from the day he was inaugurated.
He has not done so and likely will not – because even republicans would likely impeach him.
In truth Neither Trump nor even most conservatives oppose DACA. They merely want to leverage the Democrats wish for DACA to assure that we do not have to deal with this issue again.
Conservatives want the wall – because if the number of illegal border crossers can be dramatically reduced, there will be no future dreamers to have to give amnesty to.
This fight is not about the Dreamers here now, it is about making sure there are no future Dreamers tugging at peoples heart strings.
Regardless it it the benefits that are unconstitutional, and it is the benefits that Roberts made the decision based on. And if the benefits were constitutional – the APA would not apply.
Yes, but no. The GOP has had several opportunities to put this issue to bed and kept it alive.
The 2013 Immigration bill passed the Senate with over 2/3 vote and vote foujts showed it would have easily passed the House, where it was not allowed to come to the floor under the “Hastert Rule”, i.e., favored by a majority of Republicans. Obama would have signed it.
Trump, the supposed great deal maker, has not been able to make one on DACA or the wall, despite controlling both houses for 2 years, nor any with the now Democratic House. In that time there was a Senate bill for DACA with majority support including McConnell and Graham that then failed after a Trump veto threat. If the GOP wants to get this off the table, gross incompetence has kept them from doing so. Of course Mexico is paying for the wall so that part’s a done deal.
“Yes, but no. The GOP has had several opportunities to put this issue to bed and kept it alive.”
Which issue DACA or the Wall or Immigration overall ?
You seem to think that absent the votes necescary, that one side is entitled to whatever they want and the other nothing.
“The wall” has been an issue since Reagan. The construction of a wall at the southern border has been the “law of the land” for 35 years. But during that entire time the left has refused to fund what they otherwise approved by law.
They are free to do so – but those who wanted the wall have grown frustrated and mistrustful.
You say there was several opportunities – yes.
To come to a deal that would poss off a large portion of people both democrats and republicans again.
Trump was elected – and Democrats lost blue collar voters over this issue.
You seem to think that political deals are purely about party leadership – that actual voters do not matter.
The overwhelming majority of Voters – want the dreamers to be able to stay.
Nearly as large a number want a southern border wall.
The issue is not “put to bed” until both those groups get what they want.
“The 2013 Immigration bill passed the Senate with over 2/3 vote and vote foujts showed it would have easily passed the House, where it was not allowed to come to the floor under the “Hastert Rule”, i.e., favored by a majority of Republicans. Obama would have signed it.”
So what ? First you are predicting the outcome of a vote that never happened.
You are also blind to the fact that one of the major factors that attracted blue collar democrats to Trump – was that he promised no more amnesties without the actual wall being built for real.
You fail to grasp that was the deal for every single immigrant amnesty since the 80’s.
So you think it would be a good idea for congressional republicans and democrats to piss all over their voters again ? Just because you think that if the matter had come to the floor it would have passed ?
I am not even a big fan of “the wall”. And I am generally opposed to more power to the government. But I am also not stupid.
Time after time congress has granted amensty to illegals with a promise that it would never happen again and “the wall” as proof of that.
Time after time congress has lied. You seem to think your fight is with Trump.
It is not. It is with Trump voters – many of whom were democrats.
If Democrats wanted the 2013 bill to pass the house – Obama and democrats knew exactly what they had to do to do so – it it was more than get the support of the majority of the house members. It was to not lie once again tot he american people.
As to the hassert rule – please tell me any time ever that democrats have brought forth any legislation that violated the hassert rule ?
That rule has been in place long before Hassert was in congress. It is not a republican rule.
It is a rule that I fully support, and so would our founders. The purpose of all the complexities in our federal process is to make passing legislation as hard as possible. I support anything that does that.
If you beleive in majority rule – then why have a separate house and senate ? Why require the president to also agree to legislation ? Why allow the courts to find legislation unconstitutional ? Why so called hassert rules ? why so the fillbuster ?
All these are there to make it possible to STOP legislation.
Democrats in the house are actively doing exactly that RIGHT NOW.
And I have no problem with that.
“Trump, the supposed great deal maker, has not been able to make one on DACA or the wall, despite controlling both houses for 2 years, nor any with the now Democratic House. In that time there was a Senate bill for DACA with majority support including McConnell and Graham that then failed after a Trump veto threat. If the GOP wants to get this off the table, gross incompetence has kept them from doing so. Of course Mexico is paying for the wall so that part’s a done deal.”
You are correct, but you fail to grasp that nearly as large a portion of voters want the Wall too.
I would further note that this is extremely political.
Democrats are not stupid. If DACA is passed and the wall is not built a large block of seething voters will stay home on election day for many years to come. And democrats will benefit from that.
Conversely if the wall is built, that block of voters is going to vote Republican for a long time.
No one ruled it is questionable. Courts NEVER do that.
They decide cases. They do not leave them in limbo.
5th circuit found DACA unconstitutional
SCOTUS did not overturn. And in fact they relied on that
“In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”
Justice Clarence Thomas said it all right there.
I appreciate the logic of his dissent, I may agree with it in theory, unfortunately, that is not the majority decision.
I am bothering to make these distinctions because for decades i have seen conservatives twisting their heads with pretzel logic about government which is a result of Massa Tom’s lofty words in the declaration. I aim to explode those fantasies which do not comport with reality. For starters, all the theories of what the Founders intended etc, are not all that relevant to the lordships of today. Indeed what the Founders wanted, is no more important to our current lordships, than King George’s laws were to the Founders!
The reality is that the government is full of programs and agencies and all sorts of manufactured “rights” which would be an abomination under the Founder’s theory of government, but nobody is going to do away with today.
And even when we find a little one that should get cancelled like DACA, it’s very hard to do, because of other existing laws like the APA
the answer is not to just argue more cases. now there may be many answers, some may be feasible and some perhaps not.
but this one was feasible.
in the instance of cancelling DACA, it was to anticipate this challenge, and get somebody like Turley to explain how to make it work ahead of time, so we wouldnt waste 3 years trying and then FAIL
it COULD have been done. It wasnt. The fail is on the President’s incompetent legal advisors and since the buck stops with him, on him too.
Maybe Trump should have hired Ted Oleson, before the other guys did? i dont know who, but, somebody who could make it stick.
It pains me to see this failure, but, I can at least call a failure what it is.
The failure is also one of a deeper thinking that grasps the essence of power.
Instead of criticizing the left for postmodernist thinking all the time, our people need to grasp the essence of power that pervades it.
Grasp it before the hammer drops on our head and crushes all our antiquated theories into dust along with our lifeless grey matter. Because that is where it’s “heading” right now if we keep on failing.
Kurtz–“Indeed what the Founders wanted, is no more important to our current lordships, than King George’s laws were to the Founders!”
You forget that the Constitution is a legal document.
How can you tell if opposition to illegal immigration is racist or not?
If you support legal immigration, most is not white, then it’s n to racist.
How can we tell if Trump is racist about immigration? He supports legal immigration. See above. Frankly, if the illegal immigrant stream was composed of millionaires, regardless of race, he’d probably find a way to get more of them in. And at some level, people know it.
We cannot afford to allow the deluge of illegal immigration during a pandemic and global economic crisis, let alone any other time. Park the gravy train in the roundhouse.
Trump supports some legal immigration and opposes other legal immigration. Overall, the effect of his policies is to reduce legal immigration by people of color.
BTW, re: illegal immigrant labor, he can’t even own up to the Trump Organization’s use of illegal immigrants. If Biden were the one employing illegal immigrants, many on the right would howling.
“Trump supports some legal immigration and opposes other legal immigration. Overall, the effect of his policies is to reduce legal immigration by people of color.”
FALSE, there are very few white people imigrating to the US, and trump’s polices are not increasing white immigration.
Trump’s policies favor asians over south and central Americans.
The favor skilled and educated immigrants.
” If Biden were the one employing illegal immigrants”
Biden is a politician, he has been all his life. He has never built anything.
He does no hiring of consequence.
This is why ideological control of the Supreme Court is of the utmost importance to Democrats. Stuff it with Democrats and illegal immigration will go on unabated.
As long as illegal immigration pays, it will continue. When legal immigration becomes the clear winner as the best way to come here and succeed, then immigration will go through legal channels.
We have enabled and encouraged people who live reasonably close to us to pay on average $15,000 USD to violent drug cartels in order to smuggle them across. We vote for lush benefits and employee protections, but as long as illegal immigration flows, people have the option to hire an illegal who benefits from none of that.
We have turned the immigration system into a hunger games. Have a baby here, and you can stay. Go through the legal process, get a criminal background check, health check, and new immigrant information, or pay a criminal $15,000 and skip the line. Those aren’t kids you see. They’re tickets, the younger the better. Just take a kid with you. It doesn’t even have to be your kid. You can kidnap one and sell him later, because separation is inhumane.
Adults usually came here first, got settled, and then sent for their families. Now it’s the reverse. Send the mother with the youngest child she has. The more vulnerable her kid, the more secure she is that she can stay and then send for everyone else. If the kid dies in the desert, blame the US.
We apparently don’t have the right to say how many, what job skills we need in any given year, or even that we don’t want criminals. It’s xenophobic if you don’t want every square inch of the country paved so that anyone who wants to come can come on over. We’ll give them all sorts of free stuff, because illegal aliens have kids. Those kids are citizens, and they will vote Democrat because the party is pro illegal immigration. Free school. Free healthcare. Free housing. If you have a kid here, you are entitled to it all. Less expensive car insurance than citizens and legal residents must carry (CA.) Scholarships. Politicians send their kids to swank private schools, or to the public schools in uber rich neighborhoods the illegals only work in. The rest of the country has to deal with so many illegal immigrant children coming into CA that school test scores plummet. Classes can’t progress because too many students are either not fluent or too far behind. Instead of it being an incredible opportunity, for a few students to attend, it becomes a tidal wave that takes away education from everyone else.
Every single politician who votes to support illegal immigration and sanctuary cities should have to bus their kids to schools with high numbers of ESL learners.
Entire industries have been wiped out and replaced by illegal immigration. In these industries, a business owner cannot compete with the prices of someone who pays illegals under the table. Which means none of those employees have the same benefits they would if they were legal residents or citizens. We have created a caste system. That’s “illegal alien” work, no longer work for teenagers or anyone else.
In a pandemic? Lost your business or your job? Barely holding on? Watch as more and more free stuff gets given to those who paid a cartel to jump the line. It’s RUDE to have to wait like everyone else. If you live close to the US, the line does not apply to you! Squeeze the taxpayer more and more to support millions of people who broke the law to get here.
It’s a free for all.
And now a word from our Woke Audience
HAPPY JUNETEENTH EVERYBODY!!!
A crowd of 200 or more protesters on Tuesday night gathered outside Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney’s downtown apartment building and tagged the building with graffiti, and some of the demonstrators briefly entered the building’s lobby, the police said Wednesday.
Members of the crowd were demanding to speak to Stoney and yelling obscenities, and at least three men in the crowd were armed with rifles as they stood outside on Broad Street. No one was seen with a gun inside the building, according to a statement from property management.
The incident unfolded about 9:30 p.m., roughly 90 minutes before demonstrators tore down a Confederate statue adjacent to Virginia Commonwealth University’s Monroe Park campus.
At Stoney’s apartment building, the demonstrators “chanted about the mayor and tagged the building with graffiti,” a police statement said. “A group of about 20 of them briefly entered the building’s lobby before being removed by private security.”
A resident of the building who saw the protesters in the lobby said in an interview on Wednesday that the demonstrators “were all screaming, calling for Stoney to come down” and yelling obscenities including, “F— Stoney.”
The building was tagged with messages including, “We just wanna talk Stoney; come on out,” along with the phrases “Our streets,” “Who do you serve?” and “Who do you protect?”
A spokesman for the mayor released the following statement: “Entering anyone’s residence without permission is irresponsible and uncalled for, and more importantly only undermines the cause of Black Lives Matter.”
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/protesters-tag-stoneys-apartment-building-with-graffiti-and-enter-lobby-yelling-obscenities/article_e18148a9-0fbc-57df-9a16-c0f0ebc05c81.html
Yea, more of those peaceful protests.
Oh,, they’re not all peaceful.
“As protests gripped Oakland on May 29, a white van pulled up outside a federal courthouse. A door slid open, and a man peppered the two security officers outside with bullets, killing one and wounding the other.
For a little over a week, the crime was a mystery. Was it tied to the protests just blocks away? Even after the suspected killer was dramatically caught in the nearby mountains eight days later, his motive was murky.
Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that’s exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month.
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged Carrillo with murder and attempted murder, and leveled aiding and abetting charges against Robert Alvin Justus Jr., who has admitted to serving as a getaway driver during the courthouse ambush, according to the FBI. Protective Security Officer David Patrick Underwood was killed and a second officer, whom officials have not named, was critically wounded in the ambush. Inside the three vehicles Carrillo used, police found a boogaloo patch, ammunition, firearms, bombmaking equipment and three messages scrawled in blood: “I became unreasonable,” “Boog” and “Stop the duopoly.””
i was thinking these booger bois were just a different pack of anarchist but then you shared this “stop the duopoly” thing book. thanks!
Stop the Duopoly has some political meaning. The meaning is that the two parties Dem and Rep are not that different and both betray the day to day interests of regular working class americans. that’s what it could mean to me, anyways. i been thinking that for decades now and I heard a lot of the same from people before Trump and from the Bernie bros too.
maybe this apparently meaningless violence had some political content behind it after all?
anarchy is not the answer, not in the form the ANTIFA serve up, nor the booger bois, but a sincere embrace of the interests of regular people by both sets of party functionaries, and a genuine debate about policy among the major parties, would certainly be welcome
now, what i see, instead, are the old guard of Republican cuntry clubbers stabbing Trump and his deplorables in the back,. on the one hand, and the Hillary faction behind Biden, drowning out all the other voices in the Dem primary process, on the other hand. this is too bad. how sad it was that Andrew Yang’s very relevant, interesting, and creative ideas about UBI were sidelined in favor of a bunch of virtue signalling stuff such as being incessantly crammed down our throats today.
You say an awful lot of things as certain that are reported int he news – but do not appear to have facts behind them.
I have found no federal spokesman saying any such thing about this case.
Wikipedia engages in lots of speculation about the “Bugaloo boys, but does not seem to actually know anything.
They purportedly came into existance only a few months ago.
Regardless – build you case – demonstrate that Carillo is one, and that they actually advocate for the things you claim.
You do not seem to understand – you are not trusted. The media is not trusted.
You make things up.
So there is no reason to beleive something – just because you say it, or the media reports it.
Maybe you are right. But I have no reason to beleive you or the media.
Prove this, and maybe I will beleive you a tiny bit more next time.
In the meantime. There are thousands of buildings accross the country that have burned. Substantial looting, and many people killed. Crime rates are more than doubled and there is a serious danger that the police say “F#$k it”
The “bugaloo boys” did not do that.
You did.
“protestors” are now defacing and vandalizing the homes of mayors that stood behind them days before.
This case can be reevisted, based on the ruling, Pres. Trump can take other actions, within his power but, opposition will run to the courts and this could be back in the Supreme Court again. Bu, I sense Justice Roberts, based on his comments will not change his views but he may if Trump is reelected.
If Trump is reelected, my projection he will, then there will be an opening where he could appoint 1 or 2 judges. This would neutralize Roberts views.
A Supreme Court of Corruption
“…men…may do…what their powers do not authorize, [and]…what they forbid.”
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
One little thing I might enjoy about the activism from the Roberts court is that the transgender ruling might mean that the odious, un-American Megan Rapinoe soccer player may have to play against biological males and get her butt kicked all over the field. .
If we really were going to follow trhe constitution – the government can not interfere with private discrimination of any kind that does not involve force or violate a contract.
But accepting that laws against sexual discrimination are legal,
Extending to homosexuality is beyond the language of the law.
Contra Gorsuch Sex is defined by genes – like race. We still have no idea what the causes of homosexuality are, whether it is biological or a choice.
Congress can make laws barring desicrimination based on sexual orientation.
But Gorsuch can not pretend they already exist.
I have no more objection to laws barring discrimination based on orientation than based on religion or sex.
But Transexuality is uniquely different.
I am not opposed to law baring discrimination based on gender identity.
But unlike Sex and orientation. Any actual law regarding identity descrimination must be far better defined. It can not piggyback off of sex descrimination. It is even more catagorically different than orientation.
Protesting Transgendered from descrimination often results in discrimination against one sex or the other.
Transgender protections conflict with sex. By its very nature.
As you noted – must women now play sports against biological men ?
And what constitutes the members of the protected class ?
Can crossdressors participate in womens sports ? Or only post operative MTF with very low testosterone ?
These are complicated questions – and there are alot more of them. and most protections for transgendered result in discrimination against others.
While SCOTUS did not have the authority to extend Sex to include orientation.
The negative impacts of that will be small.
Extending it to gender choice will prove disasterous.
I have no problem admitting that I don’t know for certain. What I do know for certain is that there’s no justification for your claim that Trump was “selecting all his posts from BIGLAW STOOGES who stab him in the back.”
The Supreme Court of the United States of America just declared America lawless.
Anything may happen now.
Despite its egregious stupidity the DACA ruling is mostly inconsequential.
As Somin noted it is incredibly narrow. Roberts has pretty much said – just say “do over” and you will get the right outcome.
Further flushing DACA was fundimentally to get leverage to force democrats to negotiate on immigration.
At the moment Trump mostly has what he wants – he is building the wall – albeit slowly.
Most everyone knows he would buy into DACA in 10s to get gongress to approve the wall.
Meanwhile he has Mexico essentially functioning as our border patrol – they have beefed up enforcement both at their south and at our border so the US has fewer people to detain.
The left can not rant about Trump putting children in cages – when detentions are happening in mexico.
They can not fight over the deportation procedures and all the rest of this nonsense – when people are being stopped and held outside the US.
DACA is an executive order and as such, is unconstitutional.
Immigration law is passed by the legislative branch.
Period.
This is childish.
The Supreme Court has proven itself the Inferior Court.
The correct resolution of this impasse is impeachment.
What about visa overstays? With the Southern Border the most policed ever, the shift to visa overstays is dramatic. When is the President going to deal with that?
Are you saying it is not being dealt with ?
The Supreme Court abused and usurped power as it supported the abuse of power and usurpation of power by the wholly ineligible, former president, Barack Obama.
Immigration law is effected ONLY by the legislative branch.
To wit,
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
______________________________________________________________________________
What’s wrong with this picture?
What do Americans do about it?
SCOTUS just declared war on America.
SCOTUS says, “Constitution? We don’t need no stinking Constitution!”
SCOTUS and John “Marie Antoinette” Roberts say, “Let them eat abuse and usurpation of power and communist dictatorship; we do whatever we want!”
Let the Revolution begin.
Roll out the guillotines.
Now that Mr Robert’s has explained how laws are made the President should enter an EO curbing Big Tech legal protections and another EO exempting his EOs from judicial review.
Robert’s opened the door. Let’s roll.
LOL.
Maybe you should read the opinion to see what it really says.
Chris Geidner (lawyer with the Justice Collaborative):
“To the substance of what happened, it’s important to remember how limited the decision is:
“* It’s not over the legality of DACA.
“* It’s not over whether the feds can rescind DACA.
“* It is only over whether the Trump admin rescinded DACA properly under the required procedures.”
https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1273663634250612736
Quoting the ruling:
“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.” (p. 9)
Chris Geidner (lawyer with the Justice Collaborative):
“To the substance of what happened, it’s important to remember how limited the decision is:
>“* It’s not over the legality of DACA.
If DACA is illegal – DHS need not follow procedures and the courts should have declared it so.
The biggest error Roberts made was failing to reach the decsion on the legality of DACA before anything else.
“* It’s not over whether the feds can rescind DACA.
“* It is only over whether the Trump admin rescinded DACA properly under the required procedures.”
The decision is narrower than that. Roberts specifically claimed DHS has not timely provided a rationale for rescinding DACA.
From Day One DHS asserted DACA was illegal – if true that is the only rationale needed.
The timelyness claim is unbeleiveably stupid. It means DHS can rescind DACA tomorow with the rationale they already provided that the court failed to look at and restart everything.
I sure hope Trump gets better legal advice and can make his EOs stick better than the DACA one did.
Simple. Enter an EO that denies federal courts the jurisdiction to review his EOs. Why not? It’s a free for all now.
and use the fact that SCOTUS is making it up as it goes as the “rationale”.
If SCOTUS does not give a $hit about the constitution – why should Trump ?
Exactly! It has come to this.
Trump has excelent legal advice, the point which you utterly fail to get, is that the best legal advice in the world, dotting ever i and crossing every t is for naught if the courts are prepared to make up the rules as they go along.
The APA does not apply here. I have asked you for a single instance in which APA was applied to something that was not the administration acting on legislation.
You have failed to do so.
Even if the APA applied – “its illegal” is a valid rationale, As is ‘its unconstitutional”.
Roberts claimed APA required a rationale – he was provided many.
But the most important were “illegal and unconstitutional”.
They must be decided BEFORE the APA can even be discussed.
The constitution ALWAYS comes first.
Roberts did not address the primary reason that DHS provided – that DACA was illegal. A reason that is so glaringly obvious that even Obama said it was illegal – before he did it anyway.
In fact should trump lose in 2020, or be followed by a democrat in 2024,
He should on the way out the door leave a plethora of unconstitutional or illegal EO’s and force his successor to waste his entire presidency getting rid of them.
This is just stupid.
John, he’s done that already, including his end run around Congress’s power of the purse to pay for the wall that he promised the Mexicans were going to pay for.
“he’s done that already, including his end run around Congress’s power of the purse to pay for the wall”
It was legal for him to fund the wall as he did.
It was a mistake. It will make it easier for future presidents to do the same.
But this is not even close to what could be done.
Trump has made innumerable changes, he has made deregulation easier, and clearly the world has not come to an end.
He has ended the stupid Obama/Biden nonsense regarding education.
He can put in place inummerable DACA like EO’s that it will take some following administration years to unravel.
Just to be clear I do not actually beleive Trump will do so.
The worst president in modern history has been Obama not Trump.
Trump has shown no vindicitiveness. Trump has his conflicts with people right out in the open on TV. Trump can insult you one day and make a deal with you the next.
That was not true of Obama – who was even spying on democrats.
And laid mines throughout the executive on his way out the door.
That was not true of Clinton – who was famous for her enemies list and serving vengance cold.
John demonstrates both his disregard for the Constitution he elsewhere claims fealty to when it is in the way of his hero, and his incompetence on judging presidents (and humans).
A polling of historian ranked Obama our 12th best president in 2015. Trump will not get out of the 40s. I’ll bet on that.
Ah, a polling of historians ranked Obama, by any chance were these employed by our “middle of the road” thinking college professionals”
“John demonstrates both his disregard for the Constitution he elsewhere claims fealty to when it is in the way of his hero, and his incompetence on judging presidents (and humans).”
Still trying to read my mind and misrepresenting what I have said.
Absolutely not merely SCOTUS, but the entire federal govenrment are required to conform to the constitution.
And they are required to read the constitution using standards of statutory interpretation that have been around for centuries.
Those standards exist because there is no other means of interpreting law or constitution that does not ultimately result in a mess and contradictions.
Those standards are only “ideological” because those standards reinforce the limited government foundations of the constitution.
All the above said – the constitution is the specifications for a govenrment – it is not the design, it is not the underlying moral principles.
There is alot I do not like about the constitution. But I do not seek to change it by persuading the courts to find int he constitution what is not there.
The constitution gets changed by amending it.
“A polling of historian ranked Obama our 12th best president in 2015. Trump will not get out of the 40s. I’ll bet on that.”
So ? I do not care about ivory towered populatity contests.
I beleive that something on the order of 70% of the humanities professors identify as marxists or cultural marxists.
Nit a wise and trustworthy group.
Young– I don’t know about where you are, but in Texas reasoned justification has pretty much gone away as a basis for voiding an administrative law. I’m surprised the Supreme Court would rely on it in this particular type of case. What was more surprising to me though was Sotomayor’s use of alleged statements made by President Trump in his campaign to evaluate whether an administrative order was valid. And, at least one of the statements attributed to President Trump was false. According to Sotomayor, President Trump “[compared] undocumented immigrants to “animals”[.]” I heard President Trump make the animals statement. He was referring to MS-13 as animals, not undocumented immigrants. The tape was edited by MSM so that it looked like he was calling undocumented immigrants animals. Either Sotomayor’s staff does really sloppy research or she too suffers from TDS.
This is the WH transcript:
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-california-sanctuary-state-roundtable/
The only time Trump himself mentions MS-13 is much, much earlier.
Granted, Trump is a terrible speaker. He often uses pronouns or other nouns with unclear referents. Given that many of the people he’s “tak[en] … out of the country” are not bad people, her interpretation doesn’t have any less justification than yours.
I do not think it is possible for any fair minded person to listen to the videotape I saw and heard or read everything in the white house statement the precedes the animals comment and conclude that Trump was referring to all immigrants as animals.
And I don’t think any fair minded person would think he was only talking about MS-13.
Commit…..you don’t think he was only talking about MS-13 because you hate his guts.
Honest, a fair minded person – not a Trump apologist who will ridiculously insist he’s smarter than NOAA scientists and drug researchers – will interpret his comments, which at other times included saying Mexicans are rapists, as being about southern border immigrants. The mental contortions and suspensions of critical thinking you who defend this moral slug have to go through must be exhausting and secretly I’m sure you’re ready for it to end too.
To paraphrase William Buckley
Any ten people from the phone book are smarter than an NOAA scientist.
Science and government do not belong together.
The incentives in government are wrong and there is no consequence for error.
John celebrates his ignorance and typical Trumpster opposition to science. Hey, if it contradicts his hero, Dear Leader, it must be wrong. Meanwhile, the Chinese are starting to eat our lunch in science and it’s not from free enterprise.
“John celebrates his ignorance and typical Trumpster opposition to science. Hey, if it contradicts his hero, Dear Leader, it must be wrong. Meanwhile, the Chinese are starting to eat our lunch in science and it’s not from free enterprise.”
Again with the mind reading. I have no problem with science. I have won awards in chemistry and physics. I have a published paper on battery chemistry.
My criticism was specifically of government.
Govenrment corrupts everything it touches – including science.
The chinese are not “eating our lunch”.
They are doing well – a nation with 1.6B people and a standard of living that has reached the bottom of the first would should be expected to advance science.
Look into Julian Simon’s “The Ultimate Resource II”
The only truly limited resource is the human mind.
More people mean more minds.
ALWAYS more people means more scientific advancement.
But prosperity is an amplifier, as is freedom.
And a smaller freer more prosperous country can and will outperform a larger poorer less free one.
You repeatedly attack Trump for errors handling C19.
No Problem. Trump has made mistakes.
None as bad as Cuomo or Wolf or other Govenors that sent C19 pateints into nursing homes.
Regardless, you made this a contest between Trump and “scientists”
Thus far Trump’s worst choices were when he followed scientists.
He restricted Travel fast – over everyone – including Biden’s objections.
He should have moved faster.
He bought the WHO story that it was not human transmissible.
He said we would get a vaccine fast – despite ‘experts” saying otherwise.
There are about 70 vaccines in the works worldwide. Several expect to be reading by September – 2020, not 2021.
There have been no more than temporary shortages of anything/PPE.
The data increasingly coming in is that the experts have been wrong about pretty much everything.
As more and more data is coming in and the bad and biased studies are being retracted, it appears HCQ is not a miracle, but it is effective. But increasingly we are finding better choices.
We never came close to overwhelming our healthcare system. As a result we have likely caused more deaths through lack of medical care than C19.
We torched the economy for nothing.
Between protests and other actions much of the country is reopening.
There is a small increase in cases, but no spike.
Which to anyone who can grasp the data means that we should never have shutdown, that had we done little beyond protecting the most vulenerable we could have burned through this is about 4 weeks with no shutdown and no change in deaths and cases except they would have all happened faster. ‘
So what is it that the “experts” have been right about ?
The number of immigrants crossing the border that are getting raped is incredibly high.
Are you actually saying he is wrong about that ?
Who is it you think is raping them ?
I had a friend who was working at the time proscuting felonies in Crook County Illinois. Aka Chicago. He is a long time Democrat from a strong Democrat party with family members in the state legislature tell me once, “I can hardly believe how many of our sex offenders are Mexicans. It’s more than half.” I said wow, how does it compare to the black offenders in terms of proportions. “WAY MORE” he said. And this was almost 20 years ago when the Mex population of Chicago was still high but not anywhere near as high as it is now.
I generally like Mexicans and it pains me to say this, because I know they are embarrassed by it, as any good people would be. but there’s a major sex offender element in the migrant population. The same I have heard of Honduras & El Salvador.
now from a different angle:
Here’s what one of my friends who was born and lives now in Korea said about Korean migrants to America: ” I know you like them (I do, I think they are some of our finest migrant communities) and they may compare well to Americans in some ways (he sure was right about that), but from our perspective many of the Koreans who left our country and ran away to America were collaborators with the Japs or bankrupts and criminals. ” Wow, it stunned me, I was younger then and this blunt talk I had never heard.
As Americans we are conditioned to believe all immigrants are just fine, bold, people looking for a better life and no different than anybody else.
Sorry guys but this is not how other people think. Oh maybe in Western Europe or Canada but in most of the world outside “the West” people think this:
THEY MUST HAVE LEFT THEIR HOMES FOR A REASON! and often not a good one
LOL. I don’t think he was only talking about MS-13 because he makes no mention of MS-13.
FFS, I care about honesty more than I dislike Trump. If my dislike of Trump were to make me dishonest, he’d win.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist.” (Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism)
Great Arendt quote, and given the minority who put both Hitler and Trump in power, sobering. While those who voted for Trump in 2016 may in good faith be given a mulligan, those continuing to support this obvious self-serving liar, bully, and con man deserve some limited sympathy for their own shortcomings, but mainly scorn.
“those continuing to support this obvious self-serving liar, bully, and con man deserve some limited sympathy for their own shortcomings, but mainly scorn.”
So how about evidence of your claims ?
Please list any false statement of Trumps that is as consequential as those of Obama ?
No one cares about your idiotic nit picking and bizarre fact checking.
If you are going to accuse someone of being a liar – then you need some deliberate knowing error.
Something like – the attack on benghazi was a spontaneous response to an internet video not an organized terrorist attack.
If you want to be taken seriuously – your claimed lie – must also be of consequence.
Like “If you like your doctor you can keep them” – tens of millions of people could not keep their doctor.
So how has Trump conned anyone – the rage coming from the left is BECAUSE he has kept his promises.
The wall is being built. Immigration is being dramatically slowed.
The economy has done better – something we were told was not possible.
C19 Recovery is already well under way and is dramatic.
Every president since 2001 has promised to get us out of foreign fighting.
Every OTHER president has started new conflicts. Trump has not.
We are out of most conflicts, and nearly out of Afghanistan.
Right now Bolton is ranting that Trump’s presidency was all about “getting re-elected”\
Absolutely – By KEEPING PROMISES. By Not starting new wars.
Bolton is pissed because he thought he could play Trump. He thought he could use Trump’s antipathy to Iran to start a new War. He thought he had accomplished that and Trump wisely pulled back at the last instant.
Trump did exactly what you criticize him for – he did NOT trust the experts.
We hear Bolton saying Trump tried to get China’s help in the 2020 election.
How would that be ? By targetting Huwei ? But slapping tarriffs on China ?
By planting 3 super carriers arround China ?
By strengthening US ties to all of China’s neighbors and competitors and enemies ?
There is nothing China wants more right now that a Biden presidency.
So how is it that Trump got China’s help ?
But it is typical – someone says something bad about Trump – and you beleive it.
Fact do not matter. That it is completely illogical does not matter.
So long as it is bad and about Trump – it must be true.
John, your disconnect from reality in the service of cult loyalty is alarming and instructive. Taking you seriously is clearly a waste of time.
I ask you for evidence and get more ad hominem.
Why should anyone listen to you ?
This will be over John Say’s one dimensional understanding – as if our trade balance with China has not worsened since he took office, that his trade deal (now probably dead) was not judged much ado about nothing, his default relationship with Xi – and Putin and Kim – was fawning, and that Bolton offers evidence of his begging Xi to bail him out –
but China sees colder relations with the US no matter who is our next president, but likes Trump’s withdrawal from world leadership and economic competition as leaving them an open field to seek dominance.
“Donald Trump has argued frequently of late that China is rooting for Joe Biden come November’s U.S. presidential election. In Beijing, however, officials have come around to support four more years of Trump.
Interviews with nine current and former Chinese officials point to a shift in sentiment in favor of the sitting president, even though he has spent much of the past four years blaming Beijing for everything from U.S. trade imbalances to Covid-19. The chief reason? A belief that the benefit of the erosion of America’s postwar alliance network would outweigh any damage to China from continued trade disputes and geopolitical instability.
While the officials shared concerns that U.S.-China tensions would rise regardless of who was in the White House, they broke largely into camps of those who emphasized geopolitical gains and those who were concerned about trade ties. Biden, the former vice president, was viewed as a traditional Democrat who would seek to shore up the U.S.’s tattered multilateral relationships and tamp down trade frictions…..”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-15/china-warms-to-idea-of-four-more-years-of-trump-presidency
One of the areas that I (and nearly all economists) are at odds with Trump is trade, particularly trade deficits.
They are meaningless.
Your telling me that Trump is doing badly on a metric that both he and you think matter, but actually does not – means that Trump lives rent free in your head.
Trade deficits do not matter.
China supports Trump ….. Right
I have some swamp land to sell you – really good deal.
This is even stupider than the Trump/Russia claim.
China and the US are sabre rattling as they have not done since the Korean war.
China is actually fighting and killing people at its border with India.
And Trump is currying favor with India.
China has actually made it clear that they do not want india getting close tot he US.
You do know that we have 3 Super carrier fleets off China right now.
That is 2 More than Obama, and they are all relatively forward deployed – under Obama they were told to back off a couple of hundred miles.
Do you know that the US has only rarely had 3 super carriers in the Mideast at one time.
Unless you are clueless you understand that this is a message by Trump to China that the US considers China to be the greatest threat in the world right now.
You do know that the US naval assserts surrounding China are orders of magnitude greater than during Obama.
Absolutely Biden would be different than Trump.
The US has stronger ties to Asian allies TODAY than ever before.
South Korea was drifting away from the US, Japan, Philipeans, Vietnam, Even australia.
You do know that the Phillipeans has agreed to let the US use the massive naval base at Subic bay again
Japan has made a deal with Trump to operate a huge Island airbase off the south china sea. Forward locating resources for Okinawa so that they are now 1/3 the distance from China.
You know that Austrailia is talking about throwing the Chinese back out of AU.
All this and much more occured under Trump. The only country in Asia that wants to see Biden as president is China.
You do know that Huwei is within a few weeks of extinction. Trump has cut them off from all silicon foundries in the world. Very shortly they will not be able to make anything.
This is a huge chinese company that the Chines government and china’s leaders are intimately tied to.
And you think China wants Trump ?
if the CCP has warmed to Trump? that is possible
it is due to one thing, don’t mind whatever lies they tell about it.
they think he is in a weak position. that’s all.
ergo, they favor him. because no matter what he thinks or says, what he does is what matters, and they will have an easier time of things with a president that is being sabotaged by his own generals, intelligence capos, and computer lordships, than an american president who has their backing
this is cunning, but it seems few here grasp cunning as a constant phenomenon in geopolitics
notice that it was in B.O’s second term that he took a hard line on China. by his second term, BO had consolidated power of the bureaucracy, that were limiting and containing him in his first term.
the very same dynamic might happen with Trump, if he can win a second term, and somehow consolidate control over bureaucracies that have been deeply sabotaging him in his first term
From the same article:
““If Biden is elected, I think this could be more dangerous for China, because he will work with allies to target China, whereas Trump is destroying U.S. alliances,” said Zhou Xiaoming, a former Chinese trade negotiator and former deputy representative in Geneva. Four current officials echoed that sentiment, saying many in the Chinese government believed a Trump victory could help Beijing by weakening what they saw as Washington’s greatest asset for checking China’s widening influence.,,,”
““If Biden is elected, I think this could be more dangerous for China, because he will work with allies to target China”
This is nonsense
There is no moment in history that the US has more effectively unified the rest of Asia against China.
Tiawan
Japan
South Korea
Philipines.
Austrailia
Vietnam
India
are all joined with the US in confronting Japan RIGHT NOW.
Hopefully this will not turn into a shooting war – though in India it has.
But tensions are very high.
China have very few friends in Asia right now.
The US has never had more.
You like to fling arround foreign assets claims.
Hunter and Joe might well be Chinese assets.
That is not true, but it is true that a Biden presidency means more of the nonsense that strengthened china and weakened the rest of asia
“LOL. I don’t think he was only talking about MS-13 because he makes no mention of MS-13.”
Does it matter ? Are you saying that there is no consequential number of very dangerous people crossing the border ?
If Trump fails to say “MS-13” – does that mean all the bad people go away by magic ?
I find your logic weird. True and false are not determined by reality – they are purely by your personal interpretation of words.
Grow up – whatever labels you wish to use, there are alot of “very bad people” crossing our borders. And many of them are doing very bad things to the people crossing with them.
lol i hear these little quotes from hannah arendt all the time. irrelevant. there is no trumpian totalitarianism. not even close.
i doubt you read the book, few have. nor myself. however, i started it and confess I grew bored and cast it aside. but she was very smart. and her illict love affair with the greatest philosopher of the 20th century may be of some amusement, especially since he was an awful evil Nazi
Martin Heidegger
http://www.openculture.com/2017/05/the-love-letters-of-hannah-arendt-and-martin-heidegger.html#:~:text=But%20indeed%2C%20Arendt%20and%20Heidegger,developing%20from%20caution%20to%20infatuation.
most of Heidegger is inaccessible to Americans who are still stuck in the 18th century Enlightenment era. Europe moved on from there.
Arendt ‘s book gets quoted a lot but here thinking is almost equally above Americans too, because, it has precious little to do with the Enlightenment, but what about the experience of people today now that it has been crushed and swept away along with the religious traditions and social structures that preceded it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ arendt/
I find this germane to our conversation, because, I am telling my fellow deplorables, it’s time to get past referring all the time to the hoary old bromides and platitudes of the American war of independence, and Massa Tom’s famous propaganda declaration, and start thinking hard and fast about what it takes to survive and thrive today and now, not according to some dated & simplistic Lockean notions that don’t hold up to the facts anymore.
So, I recommend, to break the Enlightenment spell, read Nietzsche, whose poetic writings speak across cultures and time, and then, understanding that Heidegger is simply too much work to fathom, cut directly across to politics, the great jurist Carl Schmitt, whose political observations are also keenly relevant, four works:
Crisis of Parliamentary democracy,
“Concept of the Political,”
“theory of the partisan,” &
Nomos of the Earth,
he was followed by Leo Strauss, who I have just started to give a look, and martin van creveld, who’ve i read for years
it’s strange, is it not, how all three of these jewish thinkers, arendt, strauss, and creveld, owe something intellectually to these two nazis, heidegger and schmitt. if you think Im making that up, go pull any of hundreds of academic papers which explore that theme at the edges.
So ? I do not have a problem with the assertion that MS-13 are the only bad immigrants.
the APA does not trump the constitution.
DACA is not a law. It is an EO that unconstitutionally excercises power then President does not have unilaterally.
Even Obama told congress and the people he did not have the constitutional authority to enact DACA on his own.
And they he magically decided that he did.
The claim he made was prosecutorial discression.
If that claim is false – DACA is unconstitutional
If it is True – than the next prosecutor can choose not to excercise discretion.
Regardless there is no circumstance by which Obama can enact DACA unilaterally that Trump can not remove it.