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

在星期三, 的 “CNN新闻室” 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 previousexpansive view of presidential power.

“琼, 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. 现在这个. 发生了什么?” Sciutto asked.

Biskupic acknowledged that the 拜登 administration isnot off to a good startwith the Supreme Court, though she also emphasized that the decision was made on party lines.


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 巴拉克奥巴马, further suggested that the more conservative judges are instead acting against presidential powers despite attempting to beprinciple and precedent.

Explain to me howthe 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 answeredI think it’s all in what someone can argue, the eye of the conservative beholder here.

星期二, the Supreme Court ruled against blocking a court order requiring the Biden administration to reinstate theRemain in Mexico” 政策. This policy originally required asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while awaiting court hearings to determine their eligibility and status. 最后的投票是 6-3 with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer dissenting.