Constitutional Implications of U.S. v. Texas by Carrie Severino
On Morning Consult, Carrie Severino, is chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. discusses the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent non-decision in the case in which President Obama’s proposed expanded deferred action program was at stake. Severino is not a fan of the proposed program:
“[T]he Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision in United States v. Texas is only a half-win. We now know that fewer than half of the sitting justices are willing to stand up to an ambitiously lawless president. Adding a tie-breaking vote for a virtually omnipotent president would only encourage future presidents to attempt bigger and bolder acts of lawlessness, further deepening the constitutional crisis.
The solution is to elect presidents who will appoint Supreme Court justices committed to upholding the Constitution, not smuggling a political agenda into their judicial decisions. What course will we choose?”
KJ