What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Tamas]

Latinos/latinas in the US overwhelmingly prefer the term Hispanic, which makes the whole "LatinX" issue even more amazing.  Hispanic is gender-neutral.

Exactly - and my understanding is that in Spanish the gender neutral (though not widely used) suffix would be Latine which I think would also work.

I don't know that it's particularly culture-war-y I think it's more a shibboleth - it's a way of advertising your awareness and your views to others, for want of a better word, in your group and create a nice common feeling. I think it's less like a culture war clash than the way that Trump, for example, makes tiny references to sort of Fox News deep cuts - if you're not a huge follower you won't get it, but if you do it's like a little shout out to you.

That's a  part of politics and a part of the way we all use language. But I think in this case it hinders the other, more important part of language and politics which is to convince people, to build out your coalition etc. And on that front I think it is unhelpful.

Yeah, if you just call Hispanics Hispanics you may be gender neutral but you are not virtue signalling that you are making the effort to be gender neutral. Defeats the whole purpose of talking for these attention-whores

[The Larch]

This is one of the weird things of US politics to me, the level of interaction between presidential policy and judicial oversight, can't really tell if it's the system of checks and balances working as intended or "activist judges" as they are sometimes decried. How is it that a president changing a policy, as is his wont, can be overturned by a tribunal? Is it something purely procedural or is there a partisan application of courts to blame?

Supreme court orders Biden to revive Trump's 'remain in Mexico' policy
Justices deny president's effort to rescind Trump program
Blow to Biden as trio of liberal justices dissent in 6-3 ruling

The US supreme court on Tuesday denied Joe Biden's bid to rescind an immigration policy implemented by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that forced thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico awaiting US hearings.

The court, with three liberal justices dissenting, rejected the Biden administration's effort to block a Texas-based judge's ruling requiring the government to revive Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) program.

The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump.

The brief order by the justices means that US district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling now goes into effect.

The court's decision referenced its 2020 ruling that thwarted Trump's bid to end a program introduced by Barack Obama that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants – often called "Dreamers" – who entered the United States without papers as children.

Both cases concern whether the government followed the correct legal process in unwinding a previous administration's policy.

Biden, who has sought since taking office in January to reverse many of Trump's hardline immigration policies, rolled back the MPP program. Republican-led Texas and Missouri challenged the Democratic president's move.

Biden's administration turned to the supreme court after Kacsmaryk ruled that the Trump policy would have to be reinstated and the New Orleans-based fifth US circuit court of appeals on August 19 denied the government's request for a delay.

The fifth circuit's decision said the Biden administration must implement the MPP program in "good faith", which leaves the government some discretion in how to move forward.

Democrats and immigration advocates criticized MPP, saying the policy subjected migrants, primarily from Central America, to dangerous conditions in Mexican border cities.

Trump's administration cited a "security and humanitarian crisis" along the US-Mexican border in refusing to allow migrants seeking asylum, because of a fear of persecution in their home countries, to enter the United States ahead of hearings before immigration judges.

Reacting to the supreme court's order, Omar Jadwat, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the Trump policy during the previous administration, said the Biden administration must "take all steps available to fully end this illegal program, including by re-terminating it with a fuller explanation".

Arrests of migrants caught crossing the US southern border have reached 20-year highs in recent months, a development that Republicans blame on Biden's reversal of MPP and other Trump immigration policies.

Biden's administration has left in place a separate Trump-era order that lets US border authorities, because of the Covid-19 public health crisis, rapidly expel migrants caught at the border without giving them a chance to seek asylum in the United States.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is one of the weird things of US politics to me, the level of interaction between presidential policy and judicial oversight, can't really tell if it's the system of checks and balances working as intended or "activist judges" as they are sometimes decried. How is it that a president changing a policy, as is his wont, can be overturned by a tribunal? Is it something purely procedural or is there a partisan application of courts to blame?

Changing an administrative rule requires a certain process to be followed, as specified in the Administrative Procedure Act. If the APA procedures aren't followed the action isn't lawful.  The courts are empowered to interpret the APA.  So there is a superficial plausibility of the order.

However, there are several problems here which raise serious concerns.

1) When the Court rendered a similar opinion striking down Trump's attempt to rescind DACA, it gave an explanation of why it believed the APA had not been followed and how that problem can be corrected.  The Court didn't do that here and thus left Biden in the dark about how to fix the problem. The Court may have acted this way because they were just ruling on a stay application and not the full merits but the denial of a stay here is very consequential because of the significant delay likely before reaching a final result.

2) Unlike DACA and most APA cases which involve domestic policy, the Trump rule was a program coordinated with Mexico and thus involved a significant diplomatic and foreign policy component. Diplomatic activities are not normally covered by the APA and the Court usually steers clear of meddling in the conduct of foreign policy.  The DOJ warned the Court that the Mexican govt would view denial of the stay as reneging on a broader diplomatic deal but the Court ignored that warning.

3) Unlike DACA, the Trump policy itself was illegal and violated a US treaty commitment as incorporated into US law and thus whether the APA hoops were properly jumped through should not matter.

[Tonitrus]

This case sounds like one where the POTUS might be in the right if it told the USSC that its own decision/order is itself is wrong/unlawful, and disregarded it.

But then, Constitutional crisis and all that...

[Valmy]

This case sounds like one where the POTUS might be in the right if it told the USSC that its own decision/order is itself is wrong/unlawful, and disregarded it.

But then, Constitutional crisis and all that...

Well he cannot do that. But it is amazing what the Executive AGs discover they can do though...

[Syt]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1431011866080419840?s=20

Donald Trump Jr.
@DonaldJTrumpJr

This is what weakness looks like.

[Valmy]

It is what doing what you promised looks like, it is what actually taking risks to do the right thing looks like. Being a blowhard twitter warrior like Don Jr is what weakness looks like.

[Jacob]

Why are you retweeting a Trump, Syt? Isn't there already a thread for that bullshit?

[Syt]

Why are you retweeting a Trump, Syt? Isn't there already a thread for that bullshit?

I thought this was the general thread of how people react to the Biden presidency (akin to what the Trump thread was). IMHO that includes the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).

[Jacob]

I thought this was the general thread of how people react to the Biden presidency (akin to what the Trump thread was). IMHO that includes the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).

[Syt]

the idiocy and repugnant morals of his political opponents (and by proxy their supporters/electors).

Speaking of ...

https://twitter.com/RepCawthorn/status/1431053017927856129?s=20

Rep. Madison Cawthorn
@RepCawthorn

BREAKING: I just formally requested the U.S. Cabinet invoke the 25th Amendment.

Joe Biden does not simply have a pattern of poor decision-making, his mental decline is on full display.

We must not allow this mentally unstable individual to direct our country one second longer.

2:36 AM · Aug 27, 2021·Twitter Web App

[Tonitrus]

That's par for the course for he who is probably the most repugnant member of Congress...even ahead of the QAnon lady in my view.

[The Brain]

"Madison"? lol

[Barrister]

"Madison"? lol

Check out his handwriting!

[Habbaku]

Very on-brand for the overgrown teenager that he is, but I am also open to the idea that his injuries have harmed his handwriting.