• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Good question DD. "They" really means CJ Roberts. Everyone agrees the administration can end DACA. My opinion is that Roberts hates this administration, and probably hates the fact that this issue is even before SCOTUS rather than handled by Congress. I do think the opinion clearly establishes the administration failed to follow the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. And I think he's probably relieved he didn't have to go further than that in reaching this conclusion. Your first question is more difficult. If the administration had followed the Act and established in detail their consideration of the direct consequences of this action, my gut says it's a 5-4 decision the other way.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Trump hilariously misplayed this. He could have had a Wall/DACA deal years ago. Instead he’s going to leave office with DACA in place and no wall.
Click to expand...

Trump doesn't care about the wall, DACA, or anything related to policy beyond how it directly affects his egotism.
 
Republicans (or Democrats) would need the House, as well as the Senate and Presidency, to add additional seat(s) to the Supreme court, right?
 
Another win for abortion rights. Stare decisis holds.
 
Yep. Roberts continues to hold with the liberal justices on divisive social issues. He had concurring vote here saying stare decisis from SCOTUS decision four years ago requires the same outcome.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yep. Roberts continues to hold with the liberal justices on divisive social issues. He had concurring vote here saying stare decisis from SCOTUS decision four years ago requires the same outcome.
Click to expand...

Seems like Roberts is the new Kennedy.
 
I mean if you want any semblance of a non-political court (its pretty political) then you shouldn't overturn rulings that you just made with the pretty much the same court less than 5 years ago.
 
Positive, if/when Trump is kicked to the curb a great purge of all the followers can easily be made.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I mean if you want any semblance of a non-political court (its pretty political) then you shouldn't overturn rulings that you just made with the pretty much the same court less than 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Right. The two laws are indistinguishable as far as impact on a woman’s access to abortions
 
general SCOTUS question: why was Roberts nominated to be Chief Justice, why does the court not promote an extant justice to chief rather than a newbie? Is that how it always works? I know originally he was replaced O'Conner, but then Rehnquist died.
 
BarcaDeac said:
general SCOTUS question: why was Roberts nominated to be Chief Justice, why does the court not promote an extant justice to chief rather than a newbie? Is that how it always works? I know originally he was replaced O'Conner, but then Rehnquist died.
Click to expand...

I don’t know why they do it the way they do but yes whatever seat opens up is the one filled. So when Rehnquist left the Chief Justice seat his replacement was going to be Chief Justice
 
Roberts, in his concurrence, is foreshadowing the overturning of Roe and Planned Parenthood in the coming years.
 
BarcaDeac said:
general SCOTUS question: why was Roberts nominated to be Chief Justice, why does the court not promote an extant justice to chief rather than a newbie? Is that how it always works? I know originally he was replaced O'Conner, but then Rehnquist died.
Click to expand...

William Rehnquist as Chief Justice was a promotion following Warren Burger's retirement. Rehnquist had been an associate Justice since 1972, then was nominated and confirmed as Chief Justice in 1986. He served as Chief Justice until his death in 2005.
Antonin Scalia filled the vacated Associate Justice spot in 1986.

Thus, it took two Senate confirmation processes to fill one vacancy.

That may have been one reason Roberts was nominated directly into the Chief Justice position. Nominating one of the seven remaining sitting Justices would have then required three confirmation processes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top