SCOTUS requires regime to revive 'remain in Mexico' policy

[old dog 2]

Supreme Court requires Biden to revive Trump's 'remain in Mexico' immigration policy

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-requires-biden-revive-trump-era-remain-mexico-immigration-2021-08-24/

The brief order by the justices means that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling now goes into effect.

[DLR Pyro]

What is the argument against the remain in Mexico rule?  It worked.

It wasn't until bidunce eliminated it that our southern border was overrun with illegal invaders

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What is the argument against the remain in Mexico rule?  It worked.

It wasn't until bidunce eliminated it that our southern border was overrun with illegal invaders

That was the intention.

[Eupher]

That was the intention.

Yup. Cloward-Pivens in its full feces-smeared glory.

[Zathras]

How much you want to bet that Gropey Joe, or more likely the people behind the scenes pulling his strings, will ignore the SCOTUS ruling and keep letting every untested, unvaccinated, illegal alien into the US.

[DLR Pyro]

How much you want to bet that Gropey Joe, or more likely the people behind the scenes pulling his strings, will ignore the SCOTUS ruling and keep letting every untested, unvaccinated, illegal alien into the US.

Can the SCOTUS hold bidunce in contempt and lock him up if the mal-administration ignores the ruling? 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Can the SCOTUS hold bidunce in contempt and lock him up if the mal-administration ignores the ruling?

No. Impeachment is the only remedy.

Or rebellion.

[Eupher]

Can the SCOTUS hold bidunce in contempt and lock him up if the mal-administration ignores the ruling?

SCOTUS has, on more than one occasion, issued opinions that POTUS has ignored. Happens rarely, but it has happened. This source suggests that most of the time, U.S. presidents will acquiesce to SCOTUS rulings. We saw Obama, through his Interior Secretary, flip the bird to a federal district court when he (Salazar) lifted and reinstituted an oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. Salazar was cited in the resulting lawsuit, and he was held in contempt by that court. Obama never appeared before that court, and he sure as hell wasn't carted off to a detention cell, so in a sense he got away with it.

The crux of the matter is, this is not the first time that the Executive and Legislative branches of government has ignored or disregarded a SCOTUS ruling. Judicial Supremacy has long been a bulwark of government, but there are opposing viewpoints that cite departmentalism (the idea that the Executive Branch can read COTUS just fine, TYVM, and decide what applies and what does not). Paulsen-Whelan also opine that judicial supremacy is a myth, but that view is obviously not shared by everybody.

As they say, it's complicated.

One thing is for sure -- Roberts is a spineless coward who wouldn't dare go against a U.S. president or Congress when those entities flip SCOTUS the bird.

https://reason.com/2015/06/04/can-the-president-lawfully-ignore-a-supr/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gingrich-supreme-court_b_1017418

https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/08/obama-found-in-contempt-of-court-gulf-drilling-moratorium-u-s-federal-judge-rules/

[old dog 2]

How much you want to bet that Gropey Joe, or more likely the people behind the scenes pulling his strings, will ignore the SCOTUS ruling and keep letting every untested, unvaccinated, illegal alien into the US.

Maybe they'll appeal to the International Court of Justice or the U.N. Human Tights commission.

[DLR Pyro]

SCOTUS has, on more than one occasion, issued opinions that POTUS has ignored. Happens rarely, but it has happened. This source suggests that most of the time, U.S. presidents will acquiesce to SCOTUS rulings. We saw Obama, through his Interior Secretary, flip the bird to a federal district court when he (Salazar) lifted and reinstituted an oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. Salazar was cited in the resulting lawsuit, and he was held in contempt by that court. Obama never appeared before that court, and he sure as hell wasn't carted off to a detention cell, so in a sense he got away with it.

The crux of the matter is, this is not the first time that the Executive and Legislative branches of government has ignored or disregarded a SCOTUS ruling. Judicial Supremacy has long been a bulwark of government, but there are opposing viewpoints that cite departmentalism (the idea that the Executive Branch can read COTUS just fine, TYVM, and decide what applies and what does not). Paulsen-Whelan also opine that judicial supremacy is a myth, but that view is obviously not shared by everybody.

As they say, it's complicated.

One thing is for sure -- Roberts is a spineless coward who wouldn't dare go against a U.S. president or Congress when those entities flip SCOTUS the bird.

https://reason.com/2015/06/04/can-the-president-lawfully-ignore-a-supr/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gingrich-supreme-court_b_1017418

https://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/02/08/obama-found-in-contempt-of-court-gulf-drilling-moratorium-u-s-federal-judge-rules/

kinda undermines the whole 3 branches separation of power, checks and balances concept that this Country was founded on