Writes James Romoser at SCOTUSblog.
The Biden loss, discussed in the previous post, is West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.
The Biden win is Biden v. Texas. Here's the NYT write-up, by Adam Liptak:
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to end a Trump-era immigration program that forces asylum seekers arriving at the southwestern border to await approval in Mexico. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members. Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed with much of the chief justice’s analysis. The challenged program, known commonly as Remain in Mexico and formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols, applies to people who left a third country and traveled through Mexico to reach the U.S. border....
Soon after he took office, President Biden sought to end the program. Texas and Missouri sued, and lower courts reinstated it, ruling that federal immigration laws require returning immigrants who arrive by land and who cannot be detained while their cases are heard. Since the Biden administration restarted the program in December, far fewer migrants have been enrolled than during the Trump era....
Posts
33 comments:
It is very John Roberts to hold his last two opinions for the final day, one of which hands a win to the Biden administration and the other of which hands a big loss to the Biden administration.
It is very Brett Kavanaugh to play Mini-Me to John Roberts.
Biden has a setback to spread the Green environmental blight and renewable/intermittent/unreliable energy with the pretense of resolving the net greening effect of CO2, but progresses with [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform and collateral damage in lieu of emigration reform at both ends of the bridge and throughout.
Will undocumented democrats STILL want to come to a country trying to kill THEM with CO2?
Will undocumented democrats STILL want to come to a country that won't allow them to murder their babies?
Just what we need...even more illegals.
When Rs take the House and Senate, they need to send bills to the White House every day that fully fund a border wall.
Make Biden veto them and make him explain why.
Every single day.
The immigration decision allows Biden to keep the borders open.
The EPA decision forces the Biden administration to pass it's Climate Change Agenda legislatively.
I understand why Biden wants to keep the borders open. Democrats cannot win an election with legitimate US citizens being the only voters.
But it wont save the democrats. Hispanics have left them and the Grooming Trans LGBTQWTF garbage will make sure all those new voters they were counting on never join their party.
But I am sure the Democrats plan on mailing their votes in for them.
It wont matter. The Biden Regime is finished.
It is very weird to view the ending of 'Remain in Mexico' as a win for the President when it is clearly a major loss for America. And now as the summer heats up- literally and figuratively- the border chaos will grow and it is the American people, our civil society, our security, our schools and institutions, which will suffer the most.
Strange that when Biden wins, America loses. It is not supposed to be this way. President Biden's concerns and priorities should be for the American citizens. It is not. In virtually every decision his team makes, they are made to hinder, hurt, pull back, make poorer, or slow down the people of this country.
This has to end come November.
You know the Texas ruling would be fine if Roberts treated Trump era policies the same way as other presidents.
So, Roberts wants to help Biden let millions of illegals into the country, while ruling against the EPA. Yep, he's George Bush's Boy alright.
This is inline with Roberts voting with the liberals to keep a citizenship question out of the census, and ruling that Trump's overturning of Obama's DACA order was unjustified under some made up standard.
I'd like to give Bush credit for Alito, but he was really forced into that, after his secretary Harriet Miers was turned down by the Senate.
Biden is doing everything he can to let millions of illegals break into the country. Good for him, people are too stupid to think about the connection between supply problems, inflation, and population growth.
Tweet of the year - Mary Katherine Ham on the football coach who could pray at midfield:
"Roberts concurrence says it should be on the 30."
The Chief has become a laughing stock.
Let the caravans re-start.
Democrats are willing to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
And they are willing to sacrifice migrants, dying of heat exhaustion in the back of semi trailers, to turn Texas and Arizona blue.
IANAL, but from my perspective this is not a Constitutional question, it's a question over the interpretation of existing law.
Keep in mind that a policy being really stupid does not mean it conflicts with the Constitution.
SCOTUS is saying that the Biden administration is allowed to do stupid stuff if the Constitution does not forbid it.
People are noticing. It's a tactical win, but a strategic loss, for the administration.
"Strange that when Biden wins, America loses"
Yes, a Biden win is America's loss.
But really, what is the prog argument for open borders?
Sure, they want to transform the country and import better voters. But what is the stated reason for just letting everybody in, when "asylum" claims are so obviously bogus? When non-Mexicans asylum-seekers who move through Mexico can obviously seek safety there and don't need us?
Say goodbye to America, and hello to Meximerica.
The big loss for Biden was really almost as big as the NY gun decision. West Virginia v. EPA ends the EPA’s ability to create regulation by fiat. Big, big win for us who know that climate change is a bigger hoax than how Covid was handled.
Why they stole the country to wreck it.
Politically, the immigration decision won't help Biden- it guarantees the border situation deteriorates even more quickly. With things falling apart in much of South America, I can easily envision caravans of a hundred thousand or more beginning to form within months. What will Biden do then?
My guess is that Roberts released these two together as a message to the admin. He granted Biden had the authority to end MPP, but also sent a shot across the bow of the Executive branch. It wouldn't surprise me if the message was, "don't try to push immigration reforms via bureaucratic fiat."
Just note that a "win" for the Biden regime is a devastating loss for Americans. Funny how that works.
It's seems to me that an executive order by one president should be reversible by another president. (I was surprised when the Supreme Court made exceptions for Trump reversals of Obama's pen - requiring "good" reasons for changes to policies that might possibly be discriminatory. But I didn't investigate the arguments.) Bureaucratic workarounds to evade legislative intent are a cancer and need to be treated aggressively by the courts.
I agree with WTI, “Remain In Mexico” is good policy but it is policy non the less, which is in the domain of a President to change. The odd part is the same can be said of the Dreamers policy, but that’s consistent inconsistency from Roberts.
Sebastian said...
"Strange that when Biden wins, America loses"
Yes, a Biden win is America's loss.
But really, what is the prog argument for open borders?
I can think of a couple.
I think the idealists would make an equity argument, that you have no choice in the location of your birth, and therefore there is no valid reason to privilege claims to restrict immigration. The more 'woke' would point to a kind of 'whites only' (or at least white adjacent) immigration policy that should be changed.
The more cynical Democrat operatives want it because they are still operating under the illusion that non-white voter = Democrat (as Biden put it, "if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.")
Ruy Teixeira has thoughts on how that's working out.
Close call. The Big Lie that co2 is a pollutant gave the criminals running our government absolute power. But no more unless they steal enough Congressional elections to vote the insanity into law.
Here's numbers from the latest
Economist/YouGov
poll, it included a number of questions on abortion and was conducted
entirely after the Supreme Court’s recent Dobbs decision was announced.
On the subject of abortion, at what point in a pregnancy do you think
abortions should be banned?
Abortion should never be banned 28%
Banned after six months (the second trimester) 7%
Banned after 15 weeks 12%
Banned after three months (the first trimester) 16%
Banned after six weeks (when a fetal heartbeat can be detected) 18%
Banned after conception (always banned) 20%
That (by my math) is 54% (16+18+20) say Abortion SHOULD BE BANNED after the 1st
trimester (13 weeks?)
And that is 66% (12+16+18+20) say Abortion SHOULD BE BANNED after 15 weeks.
A Grand Total of 28% agree with the current Democrat position (Abortion is
something to brag about)
(If my math is right).. A MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS DISAGREE with the current
democrat position!
GO DEMOCRATS!!!! VACUUM UP THOSE KIDS!!!
The EPA case is a big blow against presidents governing by pen and phone. It's worth considering, however, the extent to which pen and phone may be a byproduct of the filibuster rule's making it so hard to pass major legislation. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - it SHOULD be hard.
When Rs take the House and Senate, they need to send bills to the White House every day that fully fund a border wall.
They had every opportunity to do that during the first two years of the Trump administration and didn't.
What makes you think they'll do it this time?
They had every opportunity to do that during the first two years of the Trump administration and didn't.. What makes you think they'll do it this time?
Trump endorsements?
I thought that opinions were often released in order of reverse seniority but with the Chief going last.
reality must have hit them like a two by four, depends who gets into the chamber,
There's rumor that the Biden administration is using every Federal agency connected with poor people to register voters as Dems and plans to use those same agencies to "help" these same Dem voters vote by mail. It's a Federalized version of the ZucksBucks plan in Wisconsin in 2020. In that plan Zuckerberg financed groups which took over the election process in the major cities and in the assisted living homes. These groups using city lists then drove the enrollment and the use of mail-in votes solely of Dem likely voters (and then counted the votes.) It was illegal to hand over a state function - the election - to a private group - and it would be illegal to hand over the states' power over elections to Federal entities. But some say it is happening. These same federal entities might know where the illegals have been shipped since they are giving them aid. Certainly the Feds would have coercive power over illegals. "Not a Dem? - back you go." Too conspiratorial? The NYT would never let it happen? I really don't know if it's happening. I know how well the NYT would report on it - as well as it did on ZuckBucks whose motto might have been " ZuckBucks - We F___ WI." But news agencies should look into it now, not months after the election.
Christopher B said... "I think the idealists would make an equity argument, that you have no choice in the location of your birth, and therefore there is no valid reason to privilege claims to restrict immigration."
************
Oh, so thaaat's it!
I plan to use that argument to walk across the Canadian border---no, make that the French---no, the Saudi Arabian border and demand to be made a resident---no, make that a citizen!!
After all, I had no choice where I was born!!!
And, for that matter: what is this "borders" shit, anyway, except a way of excluding people who, through no fault of their own, weren't born inside them!!??
SNORT
Christopher B said... "I think the idealists would make an equity argument, that you have no choice in the location of your birth, and therefore there is no valid reason to privilege claims to restrict immigration."
By that same argument, "my countrymen" shouldn't matter to me any more than someone from Russia, or Pakistan.
And since I'm not interested in providing welfare payments for people in China, there's no reason for me to provide them for other Americans.
And there's no reason for the US government to help you if you're abroad, and get into trouble. Because being an American citizen doesn't matter.
IOW, it's an insanely stupid idea.
Post a Comment