Supreme Court kills Obama immigration policy

[realmirage]

So for those who have parents or other family that will be shipped out of the U.S., I'm sure you've heard people saying there's no difference between the democrats and republicans. You know those people are idiots. 4 justices on the left tried to help Obama's policy. The 4 GOP judges killed it.

Supreme Court: it's not just a talking point


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-tie-dooms-obama-immigration-policy-n582961

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Democrats need to HAMMER this over and over again so that the Hispanic community

will not forget this horrible tie at our SCOTUS. Had we had Chief Judge Merrick Garland in his seat - which should have happened months ago - President Obama's appointee would've most definitely voted in favor of the president's policy. But Senate Republicans continue to block the man and block having Scalia's seat filled.

Hammer this home, each and every chance you get, and see if an avalanche of angry Hispanic voters don't come out to teach the Republicans a lesson they won't soon forget!

[realmirage]

2. I think Hispanics already get it BCD, but

the white privileged section of the population may need a reminder that voting democrat is really important. You hear me Ralph Nader?

[truebluegreen]

3. That's "DemocratIC"

and the all-Nader's-fault stuff has been debunked a zillion times. That is all.

[TwilightZone]

6. Democrat is fine in that context, in my opinion.

It's similar to "voting for Democrats".

It's when the Party is referred to as Democrat that I take exception, because it's usually intentional.

One's a noun. One's an adjective.

Nader openly admitted that he was running as a spoiler. Without Nader, Gore doesn't lose Florida.

Is he the only cause? Nope. Did he contribute? Yep.

[truebluegreen]

9. Without Jeb! et al purging voters,

without Gore running a lousy campaign (Lieberman?), without 200,000 DemocratIC (sorry, I disagree) voters crossing over and voting for Bush in Florida, without the butterfly ballot, without Gore wanting to only recount some of the votes, without the Supreme Court, without Nader--any ONE of those things going the other way could have changed the outcome, so why is it that Nader and the lefties who voted for him are the most* to blame? Unless one simply doesn't like lefties.

*in the eyes of many, apparently including the poster I responded to.

[realmirage]

11. You're willing to go to super lengths to completely minimize Nader's spoiler role.

The fact that would won't acknowledge it, even a little, says it all. You're not changing my mind or the reality.

[truebluegreen]

13. Not interested in changing your mind,

only in correcting the record. And if you can't refute any of the points I raised (as apparently you can't), then I guess Reality Bites.

Bye now.

[realmirage]

15. There's a site for deniers like you, and it's not here.

[TwilightZone]

16. He didn't say Democratic voters. He said Democrat.

Vote Democrat is correct in that context. One could say Vote Democratic, though that usage is much less common and technically incorrect, because Democratic is an adjective. Vote Democratic makes no sense because there's no target of the adjective.

The former is much more common:

https://www.google.com/search?q=vote+democrat&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6qO_VgL_NAhWM4iYKHT_DBzsQsAQIJg&biw=1704&bih=878

Disclaimer: that is a Google image search. I take no credit or blame for any content thereof, nor should my posting it be considered any type of endorsement of the obnoxious ones.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/democratic

[truebluegreen]

18. yelp, maybe you are right--

with one eensy caveat: he didn't say "Democrat", he said "democrat" which doesn't denote the Democratic Party; and one minor snivel about common usage: is it correct to say "Vote Republican"? (not that anyone in his right mind would) If so, how is that different? If not, what would you use instead?

[Igel]

22. The OP's consistent.

In the original post was written "democrat" and "republican," lower case. Take it as a quirk of the poster.

You can vote green, vote republican, vote democrat, vote socialist or vote working families party.

Notice that "green, republican, democrat, socialist" are all fine nouns. And so is the WFP.

I slightly disprefer "democratic" there, and if I include it I want to add "ticket" or spoof it by saying "vote democratically". (Then again, I tend to think of "Democrat" as a much an adjective as "apple pie" or "turkey dinner." People who require that adjectives look like adjectives must really have problems with things like "flight clearance check protocol verification" or "kitty litter bag removal". We speak a Germanic language, it's time to drop prescriptivist babble because there are enough meaningful and confusing syntactic, lexical, and morphological changes coming down the line as a result of substratum and adstratum influence.)

[realmirage]

27. This Igel dude is smart

Or dudette, whatever the case may be. You nailed it all perfectly

[realmirage]

8. No it hasn't been debunked.

And thanks for your grammar policing but no thanks. The way I used it in this context is fine.

[truebluegreen]

10. You must not have been listening closely then.

[realmirage]

12. Keep it up and you'll be stuck at some other shitty echo chamber where others have ended up

This is a site for democrats

[truebluegreen]

17. My, my--that sounded like a threat.

[realmirage]

19. Nader apologists won't get sympathy here. There are other sites that are more receptive to

self destructive voting patterns.

[truebluegreen]

20. And you know this how?

[realmirage]

21. I'm sure if you use Google, you'll find plenty of sites where people throw their votes away on

parties that will never win. The Democratic Party is the only party. Join it and help mold it. That's all there is. Anyone who makes excuses for why voting for some dead end party is ok, especially on a site for Democrats, isn't going to find much sympathy.

[BlueCaliDem]

24. I hear you, realmirage. I hear you. But let's not assume that Hispanics "already get it" and continu

to hammer home the costs for them should they decide to sit out this election - and any other election in the future.

We needs a strong Democratic Congress in order to get policies through that their families in the shadows need. Only Congress can give them what they've been so desperately fighting for, and a Republican Congress will block progress any which way they can while giving lip-service to them during election times.

[realmirage]

26. Ain't that the truth

It sucks that people don't pay more attention to congressional elections. The democratic party needs to figure out how to change that. It's not easy I'm sure. Trying to get people to think about anything is a tall order.

[Texano78704]

4. This should be a major campaign issue

Both the immigration ruling and the lack of a ninth member of SCOTUS.

[realmirage]

7. I wonder if they're waiting until the general fully heats up to start throwing everything at Trump

[Texano78704]

28. It's not just trump

It's every single person up for election in Congress this year. Every single Democrat running for Congress needs to make a big deal about this. From what I've seen here on DU, immigration has been pretty much a non-issue.

[Jim Lane]

5. This is apparently an interim decision that didn't kill the policy.

This passage in the linked article leads me to believe that what was at issue was an appeal concerning a preliminary injunction:

Thursday's tie vote does not strike down the Obama proposal. In bringing the case to the Supreme Court, the government sought authority to begin enforcing the policy while the lawsuit brought by the states works its way through the lower courts.

That process will play out for at least another year, and the next president would decide whether to continue defending it in court. Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has vowed to expand the program, but her GOP rival Donald Trump has said he would abandon it.

It's a frequent situation that a case takes a long time to work its way through the courts, and the issue is what happens during that time. I'm guessing that this decision means only that the Obama administration policy is put on hold until the litigation is fully concluded.

[realmirage]

14. Your clarification is a good one.

The fact that the next president will decide the issue via Supreme Court pick is just one more very important reason to support Hillary.

[Jim Lane]

23. Thanks for your kind words, but I somewhat disagree with your follow-up

You write that "the next president will decide the issue via Supreme Court pick...." Actually, the next President's first decision will be whether to continue the Obama policy. The next President could get back from the Inauguration and, later that day, rescind Obama's directive and order full speed ahead on deportations. That would moot any lawsuits that were then still pending. Nothing would ever get back to the Supreme Court.

If, instead, the next President decides to continue Obama's policy, we can't assume that a new Justice of the Supreme Court will vote to uphold it. An honest judge might oppose a policy but find it constitutional, or, what's applicable here, might think that the President's action would do more good than harm but was nevertheless beyond the President's powers. Supreme Court appointees have notoriously disappointed the expectations of the President who appointed them.

The only lasting solution is comprehensive reform legislation. Who knows, perhaps a thumping GOP loss in 2016, even if the Republicans hang on to diminished majority in the House, will terrify them enough to induce them to approve something.

[realmirage]

25. Yes

The next president could kill it right away. That's true. The point was that the next president will decide the issue one way or another. The recent vote was 4-4, I assume along party lines (though I haven't looked it up). If that's the case it would seem very likely that a Hillary appointed judge would break the tie in favor of the policy.

That was the main gist of what I was trying to say

Cheers

[Odin2005]

29. The GOP has pissed off everyone who is not a white male Christian.