Mark, here’s the line from the conservative court watchers—Adler is representative. What do you make of it?https://twitter.com/jadler1969/status/1430316692031393795 …
-
-
I doubt I'm that representative, in that my immigration policy preferences are likely closer to Biden's than to those Miller devised for Trump.
3 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
I think you're representative in one respect: seeing this as the inevitable jurisprudential outcome of Roberts' opinion commanding Trump to continue DACA without regard to its legality. Which it is.
1 reply 2 retweets 26 likes -
Yes, that’s the sense in which I meant it. Meaning—not the directly policy political sense. But while I have the two of , what did you make of the district judge’s ruling and textual reading of the law?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I think the DACA decision (and extant CA5 precedent from DAPA litigation) made it easy for district court to reach its conclusion (but I don't like those prededents, nor do I like nationwide injunctions).
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
I’m thinking about the reading of the statute.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It wasn't necessary for the Court's decision. I think it is open to question whether it is really judicially enforceable.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This is not original to me, but I gotta ask you guys—do you see a difference between a fully briefed decision like DACA, where the Court even provided essentially advice to the Trump admin vs a shadow docket half page with no guidance/reasoning at all? How are they comparable?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If may effect how much confidence we have in the Court's judgment, but it doesn't affect the legal merits. Also, these days, the shadow docket inquiry focuses almost exclusively on the govt's likelihood of success, which is a merits inquiry (as Court noted here).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969 @yeselson and
Put another way, we may all prefer fully argued cases and published opinions, but whether the government gave sufficient reasons for its action is a separate question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
In my view, the Court need not explain itself when it declines to act, but if it actually enters an order, it should give us a per curiam opinion, even if it's just a few paragraphs.
-
-
That would be a good norm
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes, that’s the least the Court could do with the shadow docket. But look: how is the Biden admin supposed to comply with this ruling—renegotiate with Mexico on the fly— without any guidance as to what would, in fact, be acceptable to the Court?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.