{"id":23105,"date":"2020-06-16T16:33:52","date_gmt":"2020-06-16T20:33:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=23105"},"modified":"2020-06-16T18:28:15","modified_gmt":"2020-06-16T22:28:15","slug":"daca-supreme-court-politics-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/06\/16\/daca-supreme-court-politics-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Efforts to Intimidate the Supreme Court on DACA Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Supreme Court is expected to render its\nruling on whether President Trump can end the Deferred Action for Childhood\nArrivals (DACA) program, some time between now and June 29, the last official\nday of the Court\u2019s session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision, when it is issued (or if it is\nissued) is not likely to touch on whether DACA is a constitutional program.\nRather the case before the Court is about whether a sitting president (in this\ncase, Donald Trump), has the authority to end an administrative policy\ninstituted by a previous president (in this case, Barack Obama). The answer\nseems rather obvious, and in less tumultuous times, it would probably be an\neasy matter for the Court to decide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court is supposed to stay above\nthe fray of current political and social conditions and render decisions based\non the Justices\u2019 understanding of the Constitution. But we do not have\npolitical and social \u201cconditions\u201d right now; we have political and social\nturmoil. And while the nine jurists on the Court may be men and women of the\nhighest integrity, they are nonetheless human beings who live in the real\nworld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is that reality — the political and social tinderbox in which we are all living — that some are trying to exploit. The subtle appeal to the Supreme Court is to put the ruling on ice. \u201cGiven the ongoing pandemic and the national unrest over George Floyd\u2019s killing, the Supreme Court should delay its decision on DACA,\u201d editorialized the Dallas Morning News<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The not-so-subtle appeal comes in the form of threats and potential violence, something that the country could certainly do without right now. A headline on the Univision news site<\/a>, reads \u201c\u2018We are not going to be calm until the Supreme Court rules in favor of DACA,\u2019 say dreamers.\u201d While the article contains no explicit threats of rioting, it also contains no explicit disavowals of violence in response to a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither the subtle,\nnor not-so-subtle calls for the Supreme Court to delay or tailor its ruling is\nacceptable. The Court must not be deterred from issuing a definitive ruling on\nthe important constitutional issue at hand. Moreover, a delay could well render\nthe ruling on an important legal matter moot, as there is an election just five\nmonths away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even less\nacceptable would be for the theoretically nonpolitical branch of our federal\ngovernment to cower before a mob. (There are plenty of people in the\nLegislative Branch and in state and local government already doing that.) No\nmatter what decision the Supreme Court renders, it should be done now and those\nwho are disappointed by the outcome must pursue their political aims\npeacefully, through the democratic process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court is expected to render its ruling on whether President Trump can end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, some time between now and June 29, the last official day of the Court\u2019s session. The decision, when it is issued (or if it is issued) is not likely to touch on<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":15801,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[6],"tags":[1499,1524,18,911],"yst_prominent_words":[8987,2249,2154,3101,8984,3154,2003,2045,8980,8981,1942,8985,2165,8983,5177,2754,8982,8986,3366,2242],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23105"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23105"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23105\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23106,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23105\/revisions\/23106"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15801"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23105"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=23105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}