Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but it isn’t a footnote. It’s part of the actual article, just included near the end in the “Looking Ahead” section. If they omitted it entirely or put it in an actual footnote, then yes I agree that would be a noteworthy omission. But it feels extreme to call it ridiculous when it’s right there in the article.
The other thing I’ll say is that even if this is struck down by the courts (which is not certain give the Supreme Court’s recent support for the president), that can take a while and this could still have a real impact on people. Many people thought the president imposing tariffs was unconstitutional, but as right now those tariffs are actually in effect. Companies that employ H-1B workers (and the workers themselves) will need to start planning for this immediately regardless of whether or not it is eventually struck down.
The last thing I’m wondering is when you say it’s ridiculous, do you just mean sloppy reporting? Or are you implying that the author has some ulterior motive? And if the latter, what do you think that ulterior motive is?
I think it is kind of a footnote. Many things this administration has done are illegal and struck down by the first lawsuit but later let stand by a friendly Supreme Court.
How is a president winning the election and then packing the SC corruption? It's not like people didn't have a choice, they did vote for the guy. Twice!
It’s legal corruption, but it’s still corruption. Just like gerrymandering it’s legal in America, but if it were happening in some Third World country the local news would have no qualms about calling it partisan corruption.
Wow, I didn't say either of those things are corruption, but it's telling you have changed the target of the subject I was talking about, in an attempt to manipulate the subject.
"You can't profile people" is actually a ridiculous constraint to put on law enforcement and a massive overreach by the lower court. I don't think SCOTUS needs to explain why that is the case in detail.
If someone was murdered and the cops had some reason to believe the perp was white and spoke English natively, I'd have zero issues with being pulled in for questioning on nothing but the fact that I match those features (even though I have no priors or anything else that would otherwise indicate me a good suspect).
The order was stayed because the lower court made a massive overreach they have no business making. There are many lower courts, there is only one SCOTUS. SCOTUS does not have the bandwidth to hear all the cases on the merits docket if lower courts keep overreaching.
Your options are either this or somehow forcing SCOTUS to process the merits cases much faster, which people would also complain about ("justice can't be rushed!"). But of course the complaints only ever come when the decision is one you disagree with. When things are expedited in your favor, people tend to have no problem with that.
That's true on administrative state issues (Trump being allowed to fire people in the exec. branch). It's not clear this is a 100% guarantee for everything beyond that. (Maybe a 65% guarantee).
The one ruling they arguably didn’t comply with was overturned by the Supreme Court, who held the district court didn’t even have jurisdiction in the first place.
They've complied with a number of unfavorable court rulings about immigration, but precisely because that's what they're supposed to do it goes much less viral.
I do! This dynamic drives it as well. A lot of people on social media are passionately convinced that "Trump can do whatever he wants" is the anti-Trump position and "Trump's power is still limited in many ways" is therefore a pro-Trump position. I never know how to engage with that perspective other than to say it doesn't sound right to me. If you're an anti-Trump person trying to figure out how to stop him from doing bad things, it seems pretty important to know that lawsuits are a useful component.
