From a Chronicle opinion article on 'significant' rulings of hers:
https://www.chron.com/politics/article/S...947532.php
I'd like to hear the opinions of especially the legal minds on here.
Presidential power argument doesn't really interest me. I don't know enough about the precedence being argued and it seems its somewhat gray anyway... No, Presidents are not kings, but if they have immunity themselves (and it seems that they do in some ways) it seems an end-around to ask their key advisors what they said.
On Immigration, I find this troubling. Basically it means if you are here illegally and important to your family, we can't deport you. Well, isn't EVERYONE by some measure 'important'? Isn't a guy who makes his money as a drug dealer but provides for his family, important to that family? We still put him in jail, right?
They're here illegally. They broke the law to get here. If we want to solve the problem, it seems we need to catch them before they've been here for two years and the same people who support her position here also are the ones who don't support our ability to catch them once they're here.
She was over-ruled by the rest of the court, which is also a bit of a flag to me.
Unions - it seems this was a rule to move from 'minimal impact' to 'significant impact'. I can't speak to this. her other position was about allowing government employees to unionize. I'm against this because they already have significant advantages over private sector employees... and if your government can strike, the people really have no recourse.... because they are the consumers... but they can't easily take their business elsewhere like in most situations.
Any other thoughts from (any of) you guys would be appreciated