Discussion
  • Read More
    The Noble RenardBrendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 11:29am

    I am absolutely heartbroken on this one. It’s such a disappointment that after years of activism, and pushing the President hard, that the end result would be this; an anti-immigrant District Court Judge with a chip on his shoulder would block the whole thing, then we wait 18 months only to have the program fizzle from a divided Supreme Court.

    People out there in this country are suffering because they don’t have access to relief. There are people I have talked to in my job who would have benefited from this program who are wonderful people, wonderful Americans in everything but status, who have lived in this country for ten, twenty, thirty, forty years without bothering anyone, raising their American children and participating in making their communities better. These people deserve a chance to come out of the shadows. If you ask an undocumented immigrant whether or not they want to hide, whether or not they want an opportunity to things above-board, to pay taxes, to participate as any of us, they will invariably say yes.

    Many people want to view this situation as an us versus them struggle, of those who come to “take advantage” of America. But immigrants, legal or otherwise, are what this country was built from, and the actual people who come here are just like us; they want to make better lives for their children, they want a community that is safe and productive, and they want to make their new home better.

    The Obama Adminstration’s program, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), would have allowed four million parents of American citizens, who have been in this country for more than five years, and who have no criminal record (never arrested for anything) to come out and join society in a more formal way. They would be paying taxes, working on the books, and not be afraid that they would be taken away from their children if they happened to run afoul of an immigration agent. This was a stop-gap measure, for sure. But it was the right thing to do and a good program.

    Now, we have to wait even longer to solve this problem. There are 11 million future Americans who have no status. They aren’t going away. We need a new solution and now we have to wait until the next President.

    Edit: Oh, and PS, I’m going to dismiss anyone out of hand who says something along the lines of “I guess they should have just come here legally” because A: that’s neither helpful nor relevant since the question is what to do with people who are here, and B: fuck you.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      KumichoThe Noble Renard
      6/23/16 11:33am

      Get angry. Vote in November.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      The Noble RenardKumicho
      6/23/16 11:36am

      Amen. And not for Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, or Donald Trump.

      Bernie supporters who are still on the fence about Clinton? Bernie was extremely clear that he supported executive action and immigration reform that would allow people to legalize their status. So does Clinton. Trump, however, has pledged to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. On this issue alone, if you want to accomplish one of Bernie Sanders’ signature goals, if you live in a swing state, anything other than a vote for Clinton is a vote against Bernie.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Ned FreyBrendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 11:28am

    This is why voting for Hillary Clinton this November is so critical, folks (even if you’re not thrilled with her as a candidate).

    The next president will probably select two — and possibly three — Supreme Court justices (including one to replace Scalia, given that Republicans will likely delay that pick into the next presidential term).

    If Trump is elected, he’ll lock in conservative control of the court for the next two or three decades. And his Supreme Court picks are likely to be in the Scalia mold — far right, to the point of reactionary.

    Rulings like the one described above show just how much direct, positive or negative impact the Supreme Court’s decisions can have on the lives of regular people.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      NefertittiesNed Frey
      6/23/16 11:35am

      I’m very confused why this article doesn’t indicate that the deadlock was only possible because of the blocking of the judicial nomination. Honestly they shouldn’t be able to vote on anything until there are nine. Am I missing something?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Ned FreyNefertitties
      6/23/16 11:41am

      Yes, if Merrick Garland had been allowed to take his rightful place on the court, this vote would have been 5-4 in favor of the immigratrion reform plan, and 5 million parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents would not be cruelly ripped from their families and deported over the next few years.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    PsonicPsunspotBrendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 11:18am

    We won on affirmative action, though. (Sorry—just looking for a piece of good news here!)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobNYCPsonicPsunspot
      6/23/16 11:22am

      Good.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      the johnPsonicPsunspot
      6/23/16 11:24am

      Now this poor average girl will have to blame someone else for her not getting into college. Sad!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Masshole JamesBrendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 11:21am

    But we won on affirmative action 4-3 and that’s with Kagan abstaining. The right has been betrayed by Kennedy, again! Ha!! Also, while I realize why Obama has issued so many executive orders (because fucking Congress is incapable of doing its job) we should realize that it’s gonna come back to bite us in the ass when a Republican gets into the white house someday. Imagine the orders Hair Führer would issue.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sarcastro4Masshole James
      6/23/16 11:25am

      Relevant to the idea that this is somehow unique to Obama: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.ph…

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      1llamarampage will write againMasshole James
      6/23/16 11:25am

      Obama has issued fewer orders than George W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or Johnson. In the modern era, the only Presidents to issue fewer executive orders than Obama were George H. W. Bush and Ford, who both only served for a single term or less. The idea that Obama is somehow a power-mad issuer of executive orders is not only false, it’s easily put to bed by simple research.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Arctic_AttorneyBrendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 12:18pm

    A lot of left-leaning folks were quite happy when Scalia died. In this case, he likely would have sided with overturning the lower court’s decision. Scalia was a strong supporter of broad executive power.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MisterArctic_Attorney
      6/23/16 12:26pm

      Scalia was a strong supporter of broad Republican executive power.

      ftfy

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Arctic_AttorneyMister
      6/23/16 4:05pm

      This might shock you, but SUpreme Court judges tend to have principles beyond simple team partisanship. That was as true with Scalia as any other judge. There is no reason to think he would have changed his view based on the fact that he wasn't an Obama fan. People as smart as him and who've been around as long as he was tend to take a longer view and realize that the principles that they establish will apply to both teams over time.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DidYouReallyRespondToMyComment?Brendan O'Connor
    6/23/16 11:23am

    Wait. When we played running bases, the tie always went to the runner.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      stubbornidealistBrendan O'Connor
      6/23/16 11:25am

      Goes to show how important it is to vote this November. I, for one, don't want trump appointing a Supreme Court justice.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        KrookBrendan O'Connor
        6/23/16 12:59pm
        Texas would suffer direct and concrete injury from having to spend millions of dollars printing new driver’s licenses

        I actually can’t believe this was a serious argument someone made and not a line from SNL.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          Jordan CatalanoBrendan O'Connor
          6/23/16 11:22am

          Very disappointing. As a former Bernie supporter immigration reform was one of my top interests. Good thing I started educating myself on Hillary. She holds exactly the same policy views as Bernie does on immigration reform. That, to me, was a huge relief. Now we just need to make sure that she wins.

          Almost every Bernie supporter I know is committed to voting for our girl Hills. She is basically the same as Bernie except she is for gun control and not in the NRA’s pocket. That alone is encouraging. Glancing at her long list of credentials should solidify your choice to vote for her.

          But what choice, really, is that? By abstaining you allow a Trump victory. Straight up? That’s on you. To all of my fellow Bernie supporters - If Trump wins, that is your fault.

          Man, I remember back when I was on tour with Bernie and knocking Hillary. I guess it was just easy. I didn’t know a thing about her. Well, now that I’ve actually educated myself, I’m mad impressed. She’s hella electable and has that bomb ass resume. It’s seriously straight fire.

          Let’s elect the first woman president and make some history!

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            ErnekidBrendan O'Connor
            6/23/16 11:17am

            Do the GOP really want to let Trump pick a Supreme Court Justice?

            Reply
            <
            • Read More
              MisterErnekid
              6/23/16 12:28pm

              Honestly, I believe they’d rather Stalin pick a Supreme Court justice than Hillary Clinton.

              Reply
              <