Posts: 8,389
Threads: 311
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
33
The chances of that happening are almost (but not quite) as low as they are for one of your dopey Libertarian candidates getting even 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. The political consequences of doing this would be enormous.
Posts: 5,353
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation:
26
(06-30-2022, 03:00 PM)Beastdog Wrote: The chances of that happening are almost (but not quite) as low as they are for one of your dopey Libertarian candidates getting even 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. The political consequences of doing this would be enormous. Ah, OK. So, you want SCOTUS to rule based on what is politically expedient and likely to occur at that time, and not worry about the Constitutionality itself because it accelerates your desires to strike down the Dreamer EO.Â
What if it would have been struck down, and Trump, knowing he was getting ousted, just ordered ICE to go gather them all up and deport them out of spite?
Posts: 8,389
Threads: 311
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
33
(06-30-2022, 03:09 PM)wydileie Wrote: (06-30-2022, 03:00 PM)Beastdog Wrote: The chances of that happening are almost (but not quite) as low as they are for one of your dopey Libertarian candidates getting even 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. The political consequences of doing this would be enormous. Ah, OK. So, you want SCOTUS to rule based on what is politically expedient and likely to occur at that time, and not worry about the Constitutionality itself because it accelerates your desires to strike down the Dreamer EO.Â
What if it would have been struck down, and Trump, knowing he was getting ousted, just ordered ICE to go gather them all up and deport them out of spite? Ah, ok. I see you're having trouble with reading comprehension today. I neither stated nor implied they should rule based on political expediency. The Constitution is with me on Obama's EO. It was not constitutional to begin with, nor was it unconstitutional for Trump to get rid of it.
And sure, anything is possible and I imagine unhinged NeverTrumpers like yourself probably think Trump might do something like this. But those of us who live in the real world see this as unlikely. As in, very, very, very unlikely.
Posts: 5,353
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation:
26
06-30-2022, 03:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2022, 03:51 PM by wydileie.)
(06-30-2022, 03:41 PM)Beastdog Wrote: (06-30-2022, 03:09 PM)wydileie Wrote: (06-30-2022, 03:00 PM)Beastdog Wrote: The chances of that happening are almost (but not quite) as low as they are for one of your dopey Libertarian candidates getting even 10% of the popular vote in a Presidential election. The political consequences of doing this would be enormous. Ah, OK. So, you want SCOTUS to rule based on what is politically expedient and likely to occur at that time, and not worry about the Constitutionality itself because it accelerates your desires to strike down the Dreamer EO.Â
What if it would have been struck down, and Trump, knowing he was getting ousted, just ordered ICE to go gather them all up and deport them out of spite? Ah, ok. I see you're having trouble with reading comprehension today. I neither stated nor implied they should rule based on political expediency. The Constitution is with me on Obama's EO. It was not constitutional to begin with, nor was it unconstitutional for Trump to get rid of it.
And sure, anything is possible and I imagine unhinged NeverTrumpers like yourself probably think Trump might do something like this. But those of us who live in the real world see this as unlikely. As in, very, very, very unlikely. But you are saying they should rule on political expediency by assuming these people won't get deported and removing all protections for them because they decided to trust the government and take their word for what it was. You agree they require protection and want to hinge that protection on the good faith of our political atmosphere instead of actually protecting them. You are putting the Constitutional protections of disallowing ex post facto laws in jeopardy, because regardless of what you think will happen, however likely, you have put them in danger they shouldn't be in.
Again, if Trump would have just had an EO that didn't fully rescind the Dreamer Act and simply wrote one that disallowed new enrollments, it probably would have skated through just fine.
Posts: 9,102
Threads: 153
Joined: Jun 2019
Reputation:
22
(06-30-2022, 02:17 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: I fail to see how any executive order can't be rescinded by the current executive in charge.
There should be NO executive orders, by any party or leader in power.
We have a legislative process for a reason.
The real issue here is the people being elected to House and Senate are absolute assh*les who almost universally care about personal gain and power.
Our system is broken...and I'm not sure there is a workable solution at this point.
Posts: 18,301
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
The Dreamer executive order was clearly unconstitutional and should have been voided immediately. Certainly any POTUS following should be able to void an executive order. Especially one that was illegal. Horseshit dumbass arguments aside that's just fact.
Posts: 5,353
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation:
26
(06-30-2022, 04:23 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: The Dreamer executive order was clearly unconstitutional and should have been voided immediately. Certainly any POTUS following should be able to void an executive order. Especially one that was illegal. Horseshit dumbass arguments aside that's just fact. Nobody is disagreeing with that.
Posts: 18,301
Threads: 54
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
32
(06-30-2022, 04:28 PM)wydileie Wrote: (06-30-2022, 04:23 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: The Dreamer executive order was clearly unconstitutional and should have been voided immediately. Certainly any POTUS following should be able to void an executive order. Especially one that was illegal. Horseshit dumbass arguments aside that's just fact. Nobody is disagreeing with that. Nobody?Â
Well that would be a first if no one disagrees with me.
Posts: 27,053
Threads: 476
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
70
Allow millions of third world parasites across your border and then make it an argument about "asylum" because Marxist activists are teaching illegals to recite a few words claiming to be asylum seekers. This is what a country in decline looks like.
"Hightop can reduce an entire message board of men to mudsharks. It's actually pretty funny to watch."
Posts: 4,716
Threads: 21
Joined: May 2021
Reputation:
5
06-30-2022, 06:26 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2022, 06:30 PM by Sanitarian2.)
It's not the SCOTUS place, position. authority or duty to decide what's "Fair" or "Best" for individuals or even the Country as a whole. (Sorry Kagan, you have no idea what your responsibility truly is as a SC Justice.) It's really simple, is it constitutional or not?
Sure, there are times when two constitutional "rights" are in some conflict, those are the times when it becomes a bit more complicated.
I've been screaming for forty years about how the House/Senate have given complete authority to Federal Agencies such as the USEPA to propagate rules and regulations. They pass a bill authorizing the EPA to make the water clean and the air clear and then run from the results, never have to approve or disapprove the onerous regulations. VOTE ON THE REGULATIONS and stop hiding.
1
Posts: 8,389
Threads: 311
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
33
(06-30-2022, 04:28 PM)wydileie Wrote: (06-30-2022, 04:23 PM)3rdgensooner Wrote: The Dreamer executive order was clearly unconstitutional and should have been voided immediately. Certainly any POTUS following should be able to void an executive order. Especially one that was illegal. Horseshit dumbass arguments aside that's just fact. Nobody is disagreeing with that. Umm, didn't you have about 3-4 posts in this thread doing that exact thing?
Posts: 21,360
Threads: 250
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation:
81
(06-30-2022, 06:26 PM)Sanitarian2 Wrote: It's not the SCOTUS place, position. authority or duty to decide what's "Fair" or "Best" for individuals or even the Country as a whole. (Sorry Kagan, you have no idea what your responsibility truly is as a SC Justice.) It's really simple, is it constitutional or not?
Sure, there are times when two constitutional "rights" are in some conflict, those are the times when it becomes a bit more complicated.
I've been screaming for forty years about how the House/Senate have given complete authority to Federal Agencies such as the USEPA to propagate rules and regulations. They pass a bill authorizing the EPA to make the water clean and the air clear and then run from the results, never have to approve or disapprove the onerous regulations. VOTE ON THE REGULATIONS and stop hiding. Which is what makes the SCOTUS ruling yesterday so great. They slapped the epa and said this is Congress†role
No longer GroupThink 'woke'. but it was fun while it lasted.
|