CNN host implies Supreme Court ruling an act of hypocrisy from conservative judges

On Wednesday, the “CNN Newsroom” anchor spoke with CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic on the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the Trump immigration policy. Sciutto immediately argued that the conservative justices acted against their previous “expansive view of presidential power.”

“Joan, I’m old enough to remember months ago when the conservative Court had an expansive view of presidential power and we saw that with many Trump administration policies. Now this. What happened?” Sciutto asked.

Biskupic acknowledged that the Biden administration is “not off to a good start” with the Supreme Court, though she also emphasized that the decision was made on party lines.

REMAIN-IN-MEXICO SCOTUS RULING: MISSOURI AG DECLARES DECISION A ‘HUGE VICTORY FOR BORDER SECURITY’ 

“One other thing I’d mention is the justices did this in a very brief order. The only three justices who protested this and said they would have granted the Biden administration’s request were the three liberal justices. So this was definitely one that broke along familiar ideological lines, but the only thing they wrote in that short order was a reference to a ruling that they had issued last year in President Trump’s DACA policy, the Dreamers program,” Biskupic said.

Sciutto, a former appointee of President Barack Obama, further suggested that the more conservative judges are instead acting against presidential powers despite attempting to be “principle and precedent.”

“Explain to me how — the Supreme Court is supposed to be on principle and precedent. How can you have conservative justices who for years have been talking publicly about the president has these powers, we respect and support a broad executive power. How do they manage that?” Sciutto said.

Biskupic answered “I think it’s all in what someone can argue, the eye of the conservative beholder here.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled against blocking a court order requiring the Biden administration to reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy. This policy originally required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings to determine their eligibility and status. The final vote was 6-3 with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissenting.

Comments are closed.