Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

snowcone_wars t1_j1wg13a wrote

I can't wait for nobody to actually understand the issues involved here.

This is a policy instituted by the executive. They have directly said that even if SCOTUS allowed the stay, they would not discontinue it immediately.

At the exact same time as the Biden admin request SCOTUS to stay it, they also made a request for additional time to be added to it so that they could prepare to wind it down over a significantly long period of time, all of which indicates that this is not something that the admin would just "cancel" if SCOTUS put in a stay or allowed the lower courts' rulings to stand.

What SCOTUS did say on the 20th is that in order for it to be repealed, they needed much more information from the Biden admin on what would replace it (something they have planned to do for over a year), which the admin was not prepared to provide at that point in time.

The Biden admin wanted to end the policy on May 23rd. This ruling changes nothing, but this sub will throw a fit over it.

All of this indicates that while the admin does not want 42 to stay in place (which it shouldn't, it's a terrible policy), they were also woefully unprepared for how bad the situation actually is, and therefore that their replacement plans need to be reworked to fit this reality.

I'm sure this will get downvoted because it contains actual nuance.

233

exitlevelposition t1_j1wj6qq wrote

Nobody will understand because as soon as they click the link to read it they hit a pay wall.

89

[deleted] t1_j1wtfky wrote

[deleted]

55

BeautifulType t1_j1x687s wrote

Bruh you’re so dramatic. I read today a meat magnate died. That was free so is it fake?

−43

Cindexxx t1_j1xc8r7 wrote

Yeah that person was dramatic. However, they have a point too.

Fox is free. Afaik there's literally nothing paid. They're misinformation personified as a corporate entity.

You want nuance? You pay for it. Which means most people take what's free, hence all the bullshit.

As far as the "fell out a window"..... There's no hidden info, there's no spin. He got pushed out a window. It's a fucking Russian assassin's cliche by now.

This post has a nuanced problem. My personal opinion is that it's easy to reduce problems without a full fix. But it doesn't matter, because most people can't read it and go by gut reaction.

14

Beidah t1_j1xdd9e wrote

Good Journalists deserve to get paid, which means good journalism should be paid for. This makes it harder to access, unfortunately, which means bad journalism will spread misinformation/propaganda farther. Journalism doesn't jive well with a capitalist model. We should support publicly funded news medias more.

12

Cindexxx t1_j1xebsv wrote

That changes nothing about what I said. If anything public funded news should get funding from Dems. Sure, it's going to hurt them sometimes, but most of the time it won't. Also, does subscriptions mean it's public funded? I don't think so but I'm no expert.

2

Beidah t1_j1xlw6a wrote

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just sharing an opinion on the topic. If anything, I think our opinions were aligned.

2

Dirty_Dragons t1_j1z5c3a wrote

Click on the link and mash the Esc button. You may need to do that in a private window.

1

astanton1862 t1_j1wquds wrote

Biden doesn't have a solution because the Executive Branch is not the problem. The fundamental problem is that are immigration laws are woefully outdated and completely incompatible with this current situation. The specific immediate problem is that the legal system put in place to lawfully manage this issue is so overburdened that a non eligible asylum seeker can stay in the country for years before their cases are adjudicated. That means that even if they are ultimately rejected, they can still work here to take money back home for months.

I actually do have a solution. The US should militarize the issue. Now, I'm not talking about troops or border walls. What we should do is draft all the lawyers into the Coast Guard and set up a special court system to process claims. Assign some as judges and advocates for each side and wind down the backlog. Of course this will never happen because wealthy and powerful people in our society will never be forced into service unlike the rest of us who they will happily push out in front of machine guns to die for our country.

Even if we don't go with the draft, the ultimate solution must come from Congress.

31

02Alien t1_j1wtna8 wrote

> Biden doesn’t have a solution because the Executive Branch is not the problem.

You can say that about damn near every issue in our country lmao

21

Cindexxx t1_j1xdwjm wrote

Fun idea, ruined by humans.

You think "oh lawyers will be fair" but we thought that about cops too and we know how that worked out. Oh well use people "on both sides" but it's awfully easy to fool that.

It's a hard problem. I don't have the answer either, but it's hard to be worse than the current system without going straight up evil.

−2

twdarkeh t1_j1wui5i wrote

>they were also woefully unprepared for how bad the situation actually is, and therefore that their replacement plans need to be reworked to fit this reality.

This is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and your entire comment ignores the legal problems with this ruling, and the court in general. Title 42 requires HEALTH emergency, such as COVID. Extra migrants is NOT a health emergency. Thus Title 42 should be revoked.

That the alternatives are all subpar and unideal doesn't matter; Gorsuch is right: as a matter of law, if the executive wants to end a policy set forth by the executive, then the courts have no place to intervene. It's a clear abuse of the separation of powers, and the court is proclaiming itself the de facto executive.

27

dravik t1_j1x7bsu wrote

Those are arguments that will be made at the appropriate time. SCOTUS didn't decide that, they only decided if they should stay its enforcement while those arguments happen. Considering the administration has nothing to replace it with, and doesn't plan to replace it anytime soon, theres no reason for a stay since the stay would have little to no effect.

9

TaosMesaRat t1_j1z26ih wrote

> if the executive wants to end a policy set forth by the executive, then the courts have no place to intervene. It's a clear abuse of the separation of powers, and the court is proclaiming itself the de facto executive.

This is not accurate. The power that the executive is exercising comes from Congress (Title 42 of United States Code) and is subject to modification by other acts of Congress. This is exactly why we have courts - to settle matters of interpretation among statutes when the executive exceeds its authority or fails to fulfill another obligation that is mandated because of how its authority is used.

I'm not saying this particular decision is right, only that in general many acts of the executive branch are only possible because of delegation of authority by the legislative and we need the judicial to sort out when things go wrong.

I do agree with Judge Sullivan that Title 42 expulsions violate the Administrative Procedures Act. There are other less burdensome ways to protect the public health. We don't require masking or COVID testing for citizens who return from abroad, including the countries where immigrants originate. It is an abuse of authority to summarily deport those immigrants under the guise of protecting public health in this case.

5

code_archeologist t1_j1wo703 wrote

I agree that this is a really complex problem, and the policy definitely needs to be sunset in a rational and controlled way. But I am still wondering under what authority the SCOTUS is acting to extend it indefinitely.

24

WonderWall_E t1_j1wit5g wrote

I appreciate the nuanced take and this info is great.

That said, fuck the Supreme Court for applying the standard of "we can't repeal this as it would cause chaos" in this, and only this instance. They're more than willing to throw a bomb into every other situation when it suits their ideological leanings, consequences be damned.

8