The SCOTUS Ruling Experts Are Calling ‘Stunning, Radical And Terrifying’ 1

The SCOTUS Ruling Experts Are Calling ‘Stunning, Radical And Terrifying’

 

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's order that the Biden administration—against its own wishes and policies—must essentially restart, from scratch, a discontinued Trump administration immigration policy that had caused widespread misery and harm for thousands of asylum seekers.  

» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming — 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Biden

98 comments

    1. @Cynthia Gonzalez you mean like how Colorado changed theirs so that whomever gets the popular vote nationwide, gets Colorado’s electoral votes? Talk about voter disenfranchisement!

    2. @My Perspective oooh. wow ” commie” …tell me Genius, who is a commie? and btw, WHAT is a commie? Did they teach you political theory before you dropped out of 6th grade to marry your sister?

  1. You have to restart the Mexico policy.. but you don’t have to reunite children you separated from their parents. Or even keep a list of who they are.. or where they went. Great.

    1. Children don’t get here by themselves.If you want stop this load them all up and send back to where they came from.

    2. @No More per USCIS, to request affirmative asylum you must be on American soil within its borders USCIS law
      Not changed
      And no the UN laws of immigration do not say what you claim

    3. ​@Stefan Jakubowski If the U.S. has a law or policy that prevents asylum seekers from entering onto U.S. soil, then it is preventing people from seeking asylum. You can have a debate regarding whether a person meets the qualifications of the term “refugee”, but you cannot make a blanket law that blocks access to everyone or requires refugees to remain in another country. If you doubt that, then you might want to look up the UN’s 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, part of which is quoted below.

      “The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of nonrefoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”

      Again, you can debate whether or not a person meets the qualifications of the term “refugee”, but if someone does meet those qualifications, then they have specific rights granted to them which U.S. law and the Supreme Court cannot take away (unless the U.S. wants to denounce and withdraw from the 1951 Convention and Protocol).

  2. The SC “didn’t take away people’s healthcare” and didn’t throw away election results – appallingly low bar!

    1. John “the South has changed” Roberts gutted The Voting Rights Act…

      and how do 9 unelected MF’ers get to be the deciding vote on ANYTHING for a Country of 360 million people???

    2. @Andre Cooks more like; John “out of touch” Roberts.
      Racism hasn’t “gone away” in this country, it’s just reinvented itself.

    1. M t don’t do it!!! Tim pool is for low IQ individuals and it burns brain cells the longer you listen! One reason America is where it is now is Faux News OAN Newsmax and creeps like Tim Pool!!

    2. juju where’d you move? I’ve been researching other countries I’d love to live and looking into their immigration policies. Any suggestions? I can NOT wait to leave this hellscape!!

    3. @Lynette Agueda therr are a few nice places. I don’t want to publicly say where I am. I would Google search it. Best places to live in Asia maybe? I feel like I’m in heaven every day

    1. @Trump’s Lies good thing people sneaking into the country are not Americans. They know that this admin will release them into the country after being caught. They never come back. The remain in mexico snuffs out those folks who know they shouldnt even try. Like 30 year old men with no family.

    2. @Bill Whitis huh at least if your going to try to discredit me instead of adressing the ideas like a typical woke nazi they say something more coherent. You know that has some semblance of making sense.
      Like how all the worst counties in the country for racial inequality are long term DNC areas because the Democrats are racist.
      So maybe edited your insult because it make you look we todd did

    1. @whyso curious I believe both sides are at a power grab. Infiltrated on both sides? Yes. The republican party went from the war party in early 2000s, to now the conservative libertarian populist movement. The democrats have been Infiltrated by radicals like “the squad” whom are not progressives, but regressives. The democratic party has 0 moderates, unlike the republicans.

      On top of this the independent party failed because main stream media covered Jo Jorgensen maybe twice during the 2019-2020 campaign, whilst chanting trump in every headline.

      The world has flipped, and there is no reverse option.

    2. @Dino you really don’t get it? Trump has told his supporters to be skeptical and no one should take the vaccine, and also he told his supporters that the vaccine definitely works and everyone should take the vaccine.. that seems an awful lot like he’s trying to cause the right to go to war with itself..

    3. @whyso curious its possible, but i think the republicans represent personal choice in this matter, in his speech after he was boo’d for supporting the vaccine, he quickly said its your choice. Unlike all rhetoric right now from the democrats, which is “you are an undesirable if you defy our orders for your own good”

  3. Hilarious you all give this RepulsiveCon power trip a Trump label. That former guy was too selfish to create anything without a direct payment to him. Credit Stevie Miller.

  4. This truly constitutes judicial overreach, a case of the Roberts’ court meddling in diplomatic affairs and the conduct of relations with other nations

    1. @Old Tighthead And Trump abandonded America to play golf whilst 600,000 people were dying in a pandemic. Good job!

    2. How about presidential overreach through ‘lifetime’ political appointment , underhanded tactics, and lingering effect from single term occupancy of the Oval Office, by an unpopular president ? That is happening now with a corruptly formed political apparatus/court, that is far from Supreme in its origins.
      Lousy process = poor results. Reform the process that put them there. Start with Term Limits and Election to the court by Legal Scholars. Fix what is broke and make it better. Why not ? Stuck on Stupid aint workin’ folks.

    3. Mexico can ask for literally anything they want, and Biden will be legally obligated by the SCOTUS to oblige..

    1. Since we couldn’t make phony sexual allegations stick. We’ll get him for something else. Wasting more tax payer dollars just like they did going after trump .way to go dems go get em

    2. @Sharon Snow Kavanagh is a low life He should be no where near a bench anywhere he wouldn’t even make a good lawyer, Would you hire him

    3. @Dar confirmation of a life time position is just as big as a Presidency now. Because his decision have long lasting effects. So only doing a half hearted attempt would not be accepted if it was a democratic one.

  5. SCOTUS has routinely sided with the powerful against the powerless. They provided the framework for Jim Crow. Nothing surprising about this.

    1. This is the same SCOTUS that gave us “qualified immunity” and “civil asset forfeiture”. Out of no where. Nothing in Constitution, no history, nothing.

    2. Mexico can ask for literally anything they want, and Biden will be legally obligated by the SCOTUS to oblige..

    3. Well, unless you can argue for corruption all SCOTUS and generally all court decisions should be decided on the merits of the case and precedent and law. Maybe you can argue that the powerful always have better lawyers, or the powerful write the laws that preserve their power. But it’s overgeneralization to say a pattern exists that decisions favor the powerful over the powerless without examples, and particularly when decisions are supposed to be made without consideration of which side is more powerful. Otherwise, if you are arguing that SCOTUS should consider power of each side, you are arguing for an activist SCOTUS that decides not based on law but on its own made up criteria.

    4. @Tony Su It’s not corruption. It’s providing a legal excuse to maintain and reinforce the status quo — BY DESIGN. A perfect example is the way the SCOTUS continually failed to protect Black people’s civil rights following the Civil War.

  6. Regardless of the SCOTUS ruling, what if Mexico says NO…we’re done…don’t wanna restart anything? How can SCOTUS demand or force the Biden administration to restart a foreign policy initiative if another country does not want, or intend, to participate? Is SCOTUS looking at Mexico as though it lacks sovereignty as a country?

    So…if Mexico does not want to roll back to that wait in Mexico immigration policy, then what????

    1. So you think we should just go right back to catch and release??? Did you understand that 98% of all asylum claims are rejected??, Which means they’re not seeking asylum because of violence they just are just economic migrants and that is no reason to come into this country, Being poor and living in a crappy country is not a reason to swamp a whole nation because you like what they got, Every person who wants what America has shouldn’t be able to just come and get it, And I’m sure if Mexico and South America was filled with a bunch of white people, Russians, Germans etc. you would be all about the remaining Mexico policy wouldn’t you.

  7. SCOTUS forcing a current administration to adopt the policy of the previous administration, even though the current admin vehemently oppose said policy?? Yep, sounds like democracy to me!

  8. Mitch McConnell has made the Supreme Court illegitimate. Of course, Mitch McConnell is illegitimate.

    1. Ryan Burg Well evidently like most Democrats, you’ve never watched one of his speeches. He is not mentally fit. You could have gone to a local nursing home and taken out one of their Alzheimer’s patients and put him in the White House. They tightly control any of his press conferences because they’re terrified of what he’ll say. It’s frightening.

    2. @Elaine Teut turn off the propaganda…you still talk to your family? I’m sorry they’ve distanced themselves from you but maybe that’s a clue you should see instead of made up crap about biden….

    3. Ryan Burg My family and I get along just fine. Now the administration has blood on their hands with their asinine decisions.

    4. @Elaine Teut Every President since Reagan has had blood on their hands in Afghanistan. Would you rather waste more money and lives in that country? It’s time the US stopped acting we have the right to boss the rest of the world around and take care of our own problems here at home. No more nation building except our own.

  9. Interesting thing, the Administration does not, in fact, have to restart this program. Since Marbury v. Madison (1803) (shout out to all current and ‘former’ law students), when Jefferson showed the way, executive slow, or no, walking is the way to deal with a bossy judiciary.

    1. @SaFeTy FiRsT 313 I was referring to andrew jackson defying the Supreme Court regarding his policy choices with regard to First Nations people (e.g. the Trail of Tears), by saying that the Chief Justice at the time should enforce this decision that he disagrees with. I’m just saying maybe Biden should take a similar stand in this case.

    2. @Andre Dunbar aha. Thanks for the speedy reply. Any thoughts on that DACA question? I’m curious if this will be permanent.

    3. @SaFeTy FiRsT 313 I honestly don’t know for sure, but I do hope that DACA is made permanent, along with a pathway to citizenship for all immigrants.

    4. Aren’t they simply ruling that the lower court’s ruling stands? And isn’t that ruling over a case that attempted to halt an executive order?

      Because whether or not trump’s executive order is ruled valid and legal by he supreme court or not, trump is no longer president and any subsequent president can simply write a new executive order to negate the old one or to change how it is executed or interpreted. This wasn’t by legislative action, this isn’t a law. This was an executive order.

    5. As president, I’m pretty sure Biden could write up and sign an executive order that says “I hereby nullify executive order 2019-12345 in its entirety.”

  10. As far as I’m aware the Supreme Court has no say whatsoever over how the executive manages foreign policy.

    1. @Dill Hole as i recall the lockdowns started under the last administration, you can still apply for vaccine excemptions, freedom of speech also says that you cannot force anyone to print anything and they are private entities so that argument is not only moot but stupid as well, mail in voting has been a thing for a long time and many of your arguments are made moot by the fact that the constitution also says that the government is responsible for the general welfare of the citizenry, trump has no governmental authority right now you need to seek help you blind ignorant fool

    2. Mexico can ask for literally anything they want, and Biden will be legally obligated by the SCOTUS to oblige..

    3. This is being overplayed as “forcing” when all it is doing is ruling that the lower court ruling was proper. That ruling upheld an executive order. A trump executive order. Trump is no longer president.

      If Biden doesn’t want to continue a policy set forth by a trump executive order, he can do it by new executive order or simply cancelling it. This is a policy decision. The court ruling the policy valid doesn’t force a new president to keep that policy. Trump’s gone.

  11. Oh my god, how can the courts even do this. It’s got to be a separation of powers violation right here. A president has a right to rescind an executive action. That would be like the courts telling Congress which laws to pass or the president telling the court who is guilty (which Trump did too often).

    1. I agree! Constitution has 3 co-equal branches. Not a huge Exec fan after Trump; but Biden definitely gets the call here. Supreme Court does NOT make policy!!

    2. Guys, I’m on your side, but she told you how. They used the DACA case that the Dems won as the precedent. That’s exactly why this court with lifetime appointments is so dangerous. Think of how much precedent they can set over the next 25 years? Trump picked those he did because they were so young, so they can squat the bench forever.

    1. Or reduce it out of existence and find a better way. They are no longer interpreters of the law, but revisers of the law.

    1. Indeed. It’s hard to imagine how Texas can force the Biden administration to actually do anything substantive to restart the dormant “Remain in Mexico” policy, no matter what Ken Paxton or the district court judge says.

    2. The policy was created by executive order. The supreme court ruled on a lower court’s upholding of the executive order. It doesn’t force a new president to accept the executive order if he chooses to nullify it by his own executive order. It simply acknowledged the lower court was a valid ruling.

      Biden can write a new executive order that says the executive order that created this policy is no longer valid.

      Executive orders are not law. They’re more like the rules set by the boss of the executive branch on how his employees act, what rules they need to follow. Each new boss can keep old rules or make new rules.

  12. Let’s not forget the Roberts court is responsible for Citizens United, up there with Dred Scott as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in its history.

    1. Let’s talk about Citizens United. Why do you think the entrenched political class hates Citizens United? The reason is that the citizens United gives the little person, people like you and me invoice. The incumbent politician has a huge speaking platform. The incumbent politician obtains money from wealthy people in from wealthy corporations.
      Citizens United gives the average person a voice. We can pool our money and we can take on the Republican corporate strategy. We can take on the infringed Republican political class. The little girl and guy now has a great voice and do the entrenched political class. This is the value of citizens United and I can’t understand why people so oppose it.

    2. Lol, r u 4 real?? You got it upside down and bass ackwards. Either you work for a SuperPAC like Crossroads USA or you are a lost and confused bot.

      Citizens have a vote. The answer to corporate money corrupting politics isn’t to redefine that corrupting money to be “free political speech” but to continue adding disclosure and sunshine laws to campaign finance and bring the affairs of those who make and enforce our laws out into the sunlight.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.