To the editor: Negotiating involves a party accepting something its does not want in exchange for something it wants. (“Regardless of what the Supreme Court does, Congress should make DACA stronger, and permanent,” editorial, Nov. 12)
The Democrats wanted to establish the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as a legally sanctioned option for the “Dreamers”; they did not want any funds to go toward a border wall. Republicans wanted more funding for the wall. One man’s roadblock is another man’s negotiating position.
Therefore, as unreasonable as President Trump can be, it was legitimate for him to demand relatively modest wall funding in exchange for extended protections for Dreamers.
Perhaps you have forgotten all that President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill accomplished by agreeing to do things they otherwise opposed. Frankly, I place most blame for the current situation on the Democrats; they couldn’t say yes to a reasonable compromise.
Joel Drum, Van Nuys
To the editor: It is important to distinguish between a good judicial ruling and a good outcome.
A person can be in favor of the DACA program but also criticize it for being the result of executive branch overreach. A person can also criticize the current administration for executive branch overreach.
As citizens, we should realize that we can’t have it both ways, so to “fervently hope [the Supreme Court] comes down on the side of the Dreamers” is an invitation for the court to further legitimize executive branch overreach. A case can be made that the Supreme Court hears too many cases, and has gotten high on its own supply.
Whatever you think of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, his prescription to “pass a law” increasingly seems like advice for the ages.
Ed Salisbury, Santa Monica