> these are not procedures based on open discussion and debate

Or law. If anyone bothered challenging them under the APA, they’d almost all be found illegal.

I get the companies being cowards. But where is the ACLU? Why aren’t cases being sponsored on behalf of victims of this childish autocracy that none of these rules followed the Administrative Procedures Act’s process? Does no stage AG want to stand up to a shakedown?

▲

JackC 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Cases are being filed -- of ones with decisions, about 138 successful cases to block executive actions so far, and 91 unsuccessful. https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tr...

Meanwhile the Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning, leading a Justice voting in the minority to describe the Court's current shadow docket practice as "Calvinball."

So (a) they are filing cases (b) they are winning (c) the Supreme Court is giving every indication that the law will be whatever it needs to be to have those cases ultimately lose.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning The emergency docket does not set precedent. (If you like your Roman law, it is analogous to how a consul acting with senatus contultum ultimum is empowered [1], versus a dictator, who can literally make law.) SCOTUS has been deferring to the administration around what happens while a case is being litigated. It’s stupid. But it’s not Aileen Cannon corrupt (not yet). (If I’m guessing correctly, they’re bending the knee with one leg and punting with the other. If the midterms swing even one house of the Congress, the judiciary regains its independence.) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum

▲

Nuzzerino 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ever tried to get a remote job lately?

▲

lurk2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If anyone bothered challenging them under the APA, they’d almost all be found illegal.

Why?

	▲	JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Why? It generally requires rulemaking to be done pursuant to a public-comment period and not be done in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious." I'm not familiar with the Immigration & Nationalisation Act(s), (as amended), so I don't know the degree to which public comment is required and judicial review permitted, but a last-minute rule like this would be expected to make it to the SCOTUS docket earlier in our republic.

▲

beefnugs 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Complete haphazard system that creates mini tyrants in every border officer. "I didn't hear about the existing part... back to home country loser" "I don't have any tools to verify you had an existing blah blah, back on the plane loser"

On the other hand companies with the right corruption chain will make up whatever paperwork they have to , to bypass any of these after-the-fact clarifying sound bites.

▲

jmward01 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

donate to them

	▲	JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> donate to them They’re literally not fighting a fight I want them to fight, nor making any indication they want to. That translates into me looking for someone else to donate to.