In a 6-3 decision late this afternoon, the Supreme Court issued its Order denying the Administration’s application for stay, noting that they had “failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious.”
The Supreme court used the same arguments that many previous federal judges used to block Trump initiatives, claiming that the President's decision making wa arbitrary and capricious. Of course with Trump, many times these Judges simply transferred their own disagreement with the decision into the idea that the reasons Trump gave did not really count. Once they rejected the reasoning, the idea was that what was left was arbitrary and capricious.
In this case I am not sure that Joe Biden and his Administration had provided the court with a good reason to overturn the stay in Mexico policy. There may have been a "covid" type argument that suggested the downturn in cases made stay in Mexico less necessary, but that certainly doesn't apply today.
But the truth is that Biden reversed this Trump policy for the same reasons he reverses most Trump policies. Because they were Trump policies. Not liking your predecessor and demanding that everything he did be overturned is arbitrary and capricious by definition.
7 comments:
This Court continues to Stop Biden and save the Republic.
Not liking your predecessor and demanding that everything he did be overturned is arbitrary and capricious by definition.
Donald Trump himself ran his campaign promises based upon the reversal of the Obama administration. Especially Obamacare. And of course the wall the Mexican government was going to pay for. Instead he used militarily funding for the wall that is falling apart!
Donald Trump himself set the precedent that you are crying about.
SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS SLDS
Roger , do you agree with the USSC decision?
He tried to do them and many others.
Like threatening to withdraw from NATO.
A president sent by Harry Truman.
Who also reversed racial discrimination in the armed forces.
The the current era Republicans would have called it Wokism and attacked General Marshall like you have said about General Milly!
The ACLU's argument was
During Donald Trump’s presidency, the policy required tens of thousands of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to turn back to Mexico. It was meant to discourage asylum seekers but critics said it denied people the legal right to seek protection in the U.S. and forced them to wait in dangerous Mexican border cities.
Very dangerous for the families seeking a better life, just like all of our ancestors have been doing for centuries.
I would have voted with the unnamed justices in the Supreme Court.
They didn't release their names.
So, again, Roger can't debate the actual thread topic.
Post a Comment