US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3635

On April 20 2016 03:35 Incognoto wrote:
Hello,

I heard some stuff on the internet recently about how 3 million voters in New York were apparently banned from voting or something.

I'm not familiar with the political system in the USA, so I'm wondering if any of you could shed some light on that? It sounds a little over the top, would like to have some context.

On April 20 2016 03:48 Sermokala wrote:

Its still the primary season so its just their ability vote for their county party represntative so they can go to the state convention to elect people for the national convention so they can chose someone to vote in november.

welcome to the birthplace of modern democracy.

On April 20 2016 03:53 Plansix wrote:

During the birth of modern democracy, the parties just picked someone. Weirdly, that system has some merits to. But the totally not regulated primary process is run by the parties and they have a lot of rules to prevent the other side from fucking with that process.

On April 19 2016 12:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:

Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees).

The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below.



I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here.


Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2.

The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent).

The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead).

The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.

This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily.

Also,
www.scotusblog.com

hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them.