« Marc DeGirolami on Traditionalism and Originalism
Michael Ramsey
| Main | Michael Morley: Reverse Nullification and Executive Discretion
Michael Ramsey »

02/02/2016

Greg Weiner on United States v. Texas
Michael Ramsey

At Liberty Law Blog, Greg Weiner: A Time for Congressional Hardball.  From the introduction:

The fundamental constitutional question presented by the case of United States v. Texas is not whether the President is constitutionally required to enforce immigration laws (he is), but whether the Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to police every constitutional dispute. If it decides to do the work of Congress and restrain the executive, it will, more than it did in Cooper v. Aaron (1958), proclaim a doctrine of judicial supremacy over constitutional questions. 

And in conclusion:

It is a myth, and one that far more partakes of a Brennan than a Bork, to suggest that every case demands the finality of a judicial decree. In United States v. Texas, the Court could simply observe that it is being asked to intervene in a dispute not between the state of Texas and the federal government but between the executive and legislature. Consequently, the states have no standing. The Court has no responsibility. Congress does. It should emerge from behind the judicial robes and exercise it.

It may become important to know what Justice Scalia thinks of this argument.