-
Recent Posts
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Delegate Selection Plans 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Delegate Selection Donald Trump First Amendment Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden John Kasich Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- DocJess on GOP convention plans remain in flux
- tmess2 on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- DocJess on GOP Jacksonville money woes continue
- DocJess on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- tmess2 on GOP now looking at outdoor Jacksonville convention
Archives
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: Immigration
A June to Remember/Fear?
There are times when, through the normal cycle, and discretionary decisions, events start to come in rapid procession. June is shaping up to be one of those month between elections (both in the U.S. and abroad), the end of the Supreme Court term, and the matters currently on the plate of Congress. We have already had the first major event of June — the decision by the Trump Administration to make America weaker by playing to his misinformed base on climate change and withdrawing from the Paris Accords. It’s almost impossible to count the reasons why this decision is wrong, here are a few: 1) the agreement was non-binding; 2) being a signator gave us a seat at the table in future discussions; 3) withdrawing makes China and the European Union more powerful; 4) state laws requiring an increasing percent of energy to come from renewal sources are still in effect and will contribute to the U.S. meeting its pledge anyway; 5) the federal courts have held that greenhouse gases are a pollutant requiring federal action under the Clean Air Act (even though the precise terms of the regulations to reduce greenhouse gases are not yet final) which means that we may have to meet or exceed the pledge anyway.
Moving to the Supreme Court, June is looking like immigration month. May ended with a decision in the first of four immigration cases heard this term. The case involved what types of sexual offenses against a child trigger deportation hearings for authorized immigrants (e.g., permanent residents). The Supreme Court narrowly interpreted the statute, meaning that — for some sexual offenses (those that can be committed against a 16 or 17-year old — the first offense will not trigger deportation. Two of the other three also directly or indirectly concern deportation. In addition, with the lower courts having barred enforcement of the travel ban, the Trump Administration is asking the Supreme Court to stay those injunctions. (The real issue is the enforcement of the restrictions on visas and entry. It is likely that the Supreme Court will grant relief to some overbroad language in those bars that could be read as suggesting that the Trump Administration can’t begin work on revisions to the vetting process.) There are 22 other cases to be decided this month, so immigration will not be the only big news this month. And, even aside from the decisions in cases already argued, the Supreme Court will be deciding what cases to take next term and there are some potentially major issues that could be on the agenda for 2017-18.
Moving to U.S. elections, there are still three special elections — all of which will occur this month. Two — in Georgia and South Carolina — involve vacancies created by the Trump cabinet appointment. The other — California — arose from a vacancy created by filling the vacancy in the California Attorney General position created when the former AG won the U.S. Senate election last fall. Because California uses a “jungle primary” (i.e. one in which all candidates from all parties run in one primary with the top two advancing to the general election), we already know that the Democrats will keep this seat and the only question on Tuesday is which Democrat will be elected. For the most part, both parties in choosing members of Congress to fill vacancies have followed the rule of only choosing people from “safe” seats. As such, while the Democrats have so far — in the first round in California and in Montana and Kansas — run around 10% ahead of 2018, this success has not changed the winner of any seat.
Posted in Civil Rights, Donald Trump, Elections, House of Representatives, Russia, Senate
Also tagged Debt Ceiling, French Elections, Health Care, special elections, Travel Ban, UK Election
Comments Off on A June to Remember/Fear?
Supreme Court 2016-17: Forthcoming Opinion Watch
Like much in government (including the school-year that many of us remember from growing up), the Supreme Court follows a cyclical calendar. Beginning with the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court has seven argument sessions each year. Each session is two weeks followed by a recess. Five of these recesses are for two weeks, but the recesses taken over Christmas and after the January arguments are usually for four weeks. During these approximately thirty weeks, the Supreme Court is engaged in three basic tasks: 1) reviewing applications from parties that want their cases heard by the Supreme Court; 2) preparing for and holding arguments in those cases that have been accepted; and 3) writing opinions. Because the task of preparing for arguments (reading the written arguments of counsel and reviewing the record from the trial court to get an idea of the “facts” underlying to which the law has to be applied) is time consuming, opinions tend to slowly dribble out during these first thirty weeks. As a result, when the arguments end in late April (or early May depending upon the calendar), there are typically a significant number of cases still waiting for opinions.
During this year’s term, as is not unusual, there were a handful of opinions issued in December and January (a total of six) with the number going up slightly during February, March, and April (a total of twenty-one so far with the possibility of several more on Monday before the Supreme Court leaves for its final recess. However, with arguments for the year having wrapped up this past Wednesday, there are currently thirty-eight cases in which opinions have not yet been issued. While there are some exceptions to the rule, by this time of year, the Supreme Court has issued opinions in most of the cases heard last Fall. During the argument portion of the year, it takes between two and six months to get an opinion. The simple cases in which there is unanimous agreement among the Justices (which represent about half of the cases) tend to come quickly. When the Justices disagree, the process stretches out as the Justices in the minority draft opinions responding to the majority opinion, and the majority opinion then makes changes to address the issues raised by the minority (and so on until everyone believes that no further changes are needed). The bottom line is that, at this point of the year, opinions have been issued for all of the October arguments, for about two-thirds of the November and December arguments, for about half of the January and February arguments, and for none of the March and April arguments. The expectation, especially for the remaining cases from November and December, is that the delay represents some significant disagreement in the early cases.
Before going into the highlights of what is left to come down — either on Monday or more likely between mid-May and the end of June when the Supreme Court returns from its last recess — one point to make. Justice Gorsuch only participated in the arguments for this last two-week session. The tradition is that a Justice does not vote in cases heard before the Justice joined the Supreme Court. However, it is not unusual to schedule a case for re-argument if the a Justice joins the Court after argument and the vote of the eight Justices who heard the case is split 4-4.
Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, Uncategorized
Also tagged Citzenship, Fair Housing, Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech, Mortgage Crisis, redistricting, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court 2016-17: Forthcoming Opinion Watch
Immigration Kerflufle
We knew the policy was coming. We should have guessed that Trump would botch it — both in terms of the actual policy and in terms of how it was implemented. Now, we have a fustercluck of a “temporary” Arab ban policy. There are potential legal issues involved which I will discuss below. As a major cautionary note, I don’t do immigration law. Despite what the U.S. Supreme Court may think, those of us who deal in ordinary criminal law don’t really get the nuances of immigration law nor all of the technical terms involved.
Before turning to the potential legal challenges, what has happened over the past five days is exactly why there are usual procedures for issuing executive orders. While Trump would probably have still tended toward the outrageous in this policy, some of the problems might have been avoided if things had been handled better. Instead, we have a policy statement masquerading as a policy.
Normally before an executive order is released, the White House staff has consulted with the effected agencies — here, State, Homeland Security, I.C.E., U.S.C.I.S., and T.S.A. — to get their input and make sure that everyone is on the same page at the time of implementation. Additionally, the Office of Legal Counsel typically has gone through the order to make sure that it is legally defensible — not necessarily a winning defense, but at least no glaring fatal flaws for which there is not even a colorable defense — and clearly sets forth the policy.
Posted in Civil Rights, Donald Trump, The Politics of Hate
Also tagged Chevron deference, Due Process, Visas
Comments Off on Immigration Kerflufle
Labor Day: Trade and Immigration
One of the basic concepts of economics is that the production of goods and services are a product of both capital (equipment) and labor (the work to turn raw material into finished goods or to provide the services). Some industries are what economists call “capital intensive” — meaning that relatively speaking it takes a lot of capital to purchase the equipment needed to operate (think the automobile industry). A capital intensive industry is difficult for new competitors to enter. Other industries are labor intensive — meaning that it takes little to capital to purchase the basic equipment and labor is the main input (think almost any profession). The only restrictions on entering these industries is any licensing requirement for workers. The degree to which an industry is capital intense (and how much skill the labor requires) in turn has an impact on the degree to which it is vulnerable to foreign trade and immigration poses a threat to existing workers.
Supreme Court — 2015-16 Term — Two Weeks to Go (Updated 6-20)
While the Supreme Court does not have a hard and fast rule on when it recesses for the summer, traditionally the Supreme Court tries to issue opinions in all the outstanding cases before July 4. As a result, the last part of June typically sees the media remembering that we have a Supreme Court as major decisions pour out of the court in a flood during this time of year. It’s not that the Justices intentionally save the major cases until the end, but rather that these cases are the ones that are most likely to go back and forth with drafts and counter-drafts until the deadline for resolving the cases hits.
This year, there are thirteen cases left to be decided. The Supreme Court has actually been making decent progress over the past month — having gone to two opinion days per week two weeks ago and issuing eleven opinions over the past two weeks. While the Supreme Court will not announce additional opinion days for this week until after issuing opinions on Monday, it is likely that there will be at least one more opinion day (and maybe two more opinion days) later this week. Of the remaining thirteen cases, three or four of them have major political implications.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Affirmative Action, Bob McDonnell, public corruption, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court — 2015-16 Term — Two Weeks to Go (Updated 6-20)
Supreme Court — Immigration and Redistricting
This past week was the first week of the April argument session — the third since the death of Justice Scalia and the last of this term. Next week will be the last three argument days of the term (with the last argument concerning the conviction of Former Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia — with the primary issue being which type of “favors” by a government official will support a conviction under the statutes involved). After Wednesday, the remainder of the term will be issuing opinions and accepting cases for next term. This week was bookended by two cases of interest to the issues covered by this site. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on President Obama’s decision to defer deportation of certain unauthorized immigrants. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion on the Arizona redistricting plan.
The issues in the case challenging the President’s immigration policy falls into three categories: 1) do the States have “standing” (the right to bring the case); 2) was the policy guidance the type of the decision that had to go through the formal notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (the rules governing the issuance of formal regulations); and 3) are some elements of the policy so contrary to immigration law as to constitute a violation of those laws rather than the operation of executive discretion in the enforcement of the law). As shown by the transcript of the argument, the majority of the argument focused on the issue of standing.
Standing is a key concept in the law tied to the constitutional requirement that courts only decide “cases and controversies.” The basic principle is that a person can only file a law suit if they are in some way “injured” by the action that they are challenging. Thus, while you might not like the microbrewery in your town selling out to a big conglomerate, you do not have standing to challenge that merger unless you own stock in one of the two or can somehow demonstrate how that sale effects a legally-recognized interest that you have. Traditionally, states have a right to sue on things that adversely impact their governmental interests, but do not have the right to sue because the voters of their state disagree with a decision. When multiple parties join together in a case, the case can continue as long as one of them has standing. In recent years, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court have taken a narrow view of standing — one of the many doctrines that conservatives have used to keep cases out of court.
Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial
Also tagged redistricting, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court — Immigration and Redistricting
Supreme Court Midterm Report
When people think about key dates in the Supreme Court calendar, the day that most comes to mind is the First Monday in October (the official start of the annual term) — probably because it is the only date that is set in stone. The first argument day of each term is always the first Monday in October. There are other key points in the term, but they float a bit. One of those floating dates is the Monday after the last January argument. That date (which was earlier this week) is key because of the effective time table created by the Supreme Court’s rules. Under those rules, barring emergencies required rushed briefing and argument (United States vs. Nixon, Bush vs. Gore), the soonest that a case can be argued is approximately three months after the Supreme Court decides to grant full argument on a case. Because the last argument session is always in late April/Early May, any case accepted for argument after January will not be heard before the next term begins in October. That makes this point of the year the first time that it is possible to say with absolute certainty what cases will be heard and decided by June. With this being an election year, the politically explosive cases on the Supreme Court’s argument calendars are even more explosive.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Affirmative Action, Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court, Voting Rights
Comments Off on Supreme Court Midterm Report
Equal Representation and the Supreme Court
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in Evanwel vs. Abbott. The issue in this case is how to measure population for the purposes of determining if districts have roughly equal population. The challengers are asserting that population should be based on voters rather than the total population. The State of Texas is claiming that each state gets to choose the appropriate measure of population. This case involves both theoretical discussion of the nature of representation as well as very serious political impact. The decision could vastly alter the politics of the U.S.
Posted in Civil Rights, Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, Judicial
Also tagged Equal Representation, Supreme Court, Voting
Comments Off on Equal Representation and the Supreme Court
Immigration and Marriage
In politics, leaked information is rather common. It always seems that a potential proposal or policy change hits the news while it is still under consideration. The judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, has been mostly immune from this practice. The lack of solid information on what the Supreme Court has decided in any particular case before the official release of the decision leads those who follow the Supreme Court to try to read omens and clues from a variety of sources — the questions asked at oral argument, which justices have issued opinions from a particular two-week argument session, and sometimes what the justices have said in another opinion.
As we near the end of the active part of this year’s Supreme Court term, this past week saw a flood of opinions (nine opinions) leaving eleven cases to be issued presumably between Monday and July 1. (At the present time, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be handing down some opinions on Monday, June 22. It is unlikely that they will hand down eleven opinions on Monday. The Supreme Court has not yet announced any other days for the next seven days. Jf the Supreme Court is going to hand down all opinions this week, there will probably be one or two more days. If not, we will see at least some opinions on June 29, and maybe even on June 30 or July 1.) There were a couple of interesting Free Speech cases that I will probably post something on during the down time of July, but the big four cases of the second half of the term remain for this last push (fair housing, redistricting, health insurance subsidies, and same-sex marriage). The big surprise this week, however came in an unexpected case, Kerry v. Din. When this case came to the Supreme Court, it looked like a case about immigration law and the virtually unreviewable discretion of embassy staff to reject a visa request. However, this case arose in the context of the spouse of a U.S. citizen and court watchers are now wondering what the discussion of marital rights in this case might hint about the same-sex marriage cases.
Posted in Judicial, LGBT
Also tagged Right to Marry, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Immigration and Marriage