SCOTUS Gives Trump BIG Win


>>The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of
Donald Trump by temporarily allowing the Trump administration to implement its new asylum
rules while the courts decide whether or not this new move by the Trump administration
is constitutional. This is likely going to work its way back
up to the Supreme Court, but understand that this latest ruling is temporary. It’s just meant to allow to do what he wants
to do now as this case works its way through the courts. The Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order,
said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications
from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States
without being denied asylum in that country. So, essentially if you are an asylum seeker
and you have to travel through a certain country to get to the United States, under these new
rules you would have to apply for asylum in the country that you’re traveling through,
and it isn’t until you’re denied asylum in that country that you can apply for asylum
here in the United States. Of course this is an effort to halt all asylum
seekers from Central America, or at least most asylum seekers from Central American
countries.>>Well, it makes it really inconvenient because
as they’re working their way up into Mexico, it might take a while for the application
process to go through. So, presumably they just have to get an Airbnb
for like three months or something like that. Because they have lots of resources, and they
can afford to just wait around for the government to get back to them. And also understand that what Mexico is doing
is it is trying to prevent asylum seekers from coming into their own country. So, they literally have armed members of their
military at their southern border to prevent Central Americans from coming into Mexico. Because it essentially puts the onus on the
government of Mexico to deal with the asylum seekers. And they don’t want to do it, so they’re guarding
their southern border a little more closely.>>They’re carrying a lot of our loads here
with paying for the wall and now paying for these asylum seekers who actually want to
come here. Obviously that’s sarcasm. They’re not doing any of that. It’s absurd that Trump even wanted that to
go through but just the thing that sticks out to me most is Merrick Garland. This wouldn’t be happening if Merrick Garland
were on the court or it would be at least stymied in some sort of way. But we have Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick
Garland, and that all has to do with the obstructionism of the Republicans. So, once again when we hear Nancy Pelosi come
out today and say we need a bipartisan agreement before we impeach Donald Trump, a reminder
of who we’re dealing with on the other side. It’s incredible. It’s really incredible. So, I wanna give you some more details on
what the Supreme Court has given Donald Trump during his first term. Just a few months ago, in July, the court
allowed the administration to begin using $2.5 billion in Pentagon money for the construction
of a barrier along the Mexican border. Last year, the court upheld President Trump’s
ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries. Now, there were two justices who dissented
in this latest Supreme Court decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg in dissenting, saying the court’s action will quote upend longstanding practices
regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution. Sotomayor wrote that the Court’s ruling also
sidesteps the ordinary judicial process to allow the government to implement a rule that
bypassed the ordinary rule making process. So, what she’s saying there is look you have
an executive branch who is making decisions without going through Congress. We have that branch of government for a reason. These are supposed to be the law makers and
Trump is supposed to either veto or sign legislation, but in this case you have Trump acting unilaterally. And then the Supreme Court because of how
it’s now stacked against common sense policy will protect him and will help to implement
those policies even as it’s working it’s way through the federal court system.>>Yeah, and the law is incredibly clear. If you’re a migrant you’re allowed to apply
for asylum. This only subverts the law. That’s the point of it. I know that conservatives love to say that
it’s the letter of the law. We just check, we’re textualists. We like to look and see what does it actually
say. It’s super clear here. But what’s equally clear is they have the
numbers and so they can do whatever they want. When it comes to these immigration issues,
as you pointed out, they’re always going to side with them. And so while again, as you pointed out, it’s
going to work its way back into the Supreme Court, if you would like to believe that they’ll
change their mind between now and then you’re free to do so. There’s no evidence that that’s actually going
to happen. And this is going to screw over tons of people. I mean, this is literally a life or death
issue for many migrants. People will die as a result of this. You could argue that’s the entire point actually. Stop them from coming from the Middle East. Screw people coming from Syria. People in Bahamas you can stay there and die
if you want. Even if you’re an American citizen in Puerto
Rico, we’re gonna leave you there to die. We’re not gonna help you out at all. Central America you can stay there and you
could die. They call it America first. Of course at the same time he’s screwing over
his own people too. So, it’s not really America first. It’s just definitely middle fingers to everyone
else around the world.>>That’s exactly right. And I do want to read a little more from what
Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent because it was strong and she made great points and
unfortunately, we don’t have as many thinkers like Justice Sotomayor or Justice Ginsburg
in the Supreme Court right now, but she makes such a great point. I mean, look, this is more, it’s frustrating. The case itself is frustrating. But it’s really more about our system of government
and how it’s supposed to work and how this really just flies in the face of all of that. She writes, unfortunately it appears the Government
has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this
kind of request rarely. Now it does so reflexively. She also writes, once again the Executive
Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees
who seek shelter from persecution. I read that part earlier. Although this Nation has long kept its doors
open to refugees and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher, the Government
implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public
input generally required by law.>>Yeah.>>Yeah, of course, and I hope that everyone
who thinks that the Supreme Court is this neutral arbiter of laws and that they’re just
completely put away from or they’re isolated from politics takes a long look at what’s
happening right now. We still pretend like these judges are isolated
from the political machinations of the day and that they are really just acting as they
see the letter of the law and how they read the Constitution and the text and their own
judicial philosophy. It’s this myth, this American myth, that’s
been going on and on and on for the past few decades when it’s impossible for them to be
isolated from politics. We have TV. We have the Internet. We have news everywhere every single day. So let’s move beyond this myth that just kind
of aggrandizes the American system and makes it seem like we’re something better than we
are. This is the reality. Let’s deal with it now. It’s a politicized court, as are all the politicized
courts, as are all the courts. And the Democrats better catch up because
as you look at the lower courts, they’re stacked with conservative. So, while the Democrats are still pretending
in this old school myth about American exceptionalism, the Republicans are quietly stacking courts
with very dangerous conservatives who are doing things under the guise of constitutionalism.>>With very little push-back from Chuck Schumer
which is incredibly frustrating. He struck a deal with Mitch McConnell when
it came to confirming many of these federal judges. And just to buttress your point and reinforce
it, the reality is when it comes to this particular case, an Obama appointed federal judge struck
this new asylum rule down. And then you have a Trump appointed judge
saying, no, it can stand. This is constitutional. I’m fine with it. So yes, there are activists judges. There’s no question about it.>>They’re all activists.>>Yes.>>Both on the left and both on the right
and that’s okay. That’s the new reality.>>Let’s just acknowledge it.>>Let’s stop pretending.>>Let’s move on because while the liberals
are pretending, the Republicans are the ones who are doing the dirty politics per usual.>>Yeah, and by the way Sotomayor said that
this was, that they were doing this reflexively now. And you should expect that that will become
more common because they have set up an inherently undemocratic, but potentially sustainable
situation where the Executive Branch and the Senate are set up in a way that artificially
increases the electoral power of Republicans. It’s much easier thanks to the electoral college. And the way that the Senate benefits small
rural states that they can control that. That gives them the Supreme Court by the way
because they have the Senate and so they have the majority there. So, the President can simply make executive
orders knowing that the Supreme Court is going to protect him. Taking over the Senate is gonna be incredibly
difficult because of the way the system is set up. And even if in the one branch in or one part
of one branch and in the house where it’s not set up in a way that’s as easy to manipulate,
they’re still trying with voter suppression and things like that gerrymandering, but it’s
harder. Okay, well then you can take control of that
and we did. But it doesn’t matter if the Supreme Court
and the Executive Branch are working hand in hand.>>Yeah.>>It’s not a democracy, it’s just not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *