program, the children that were brought to the united states illegally by their parents before they were 16. the lower courts had blocked the administration from stopping the program. you may recall it was put in place by the obama administration, the trump administration wanted to shut it down by march 5th. but a judge in san francisco last month said no, you can t do that, because you illegally tried to shut it down. the trump administration asked the supreme court to take the case immediately, bypassing the court of appeals. a rare move if it had been granted. and today it was not. the supreme court said it s not going to hear this case in a very brief order. it simply says this, it is assumed that the court will decide this case. number one, the march 5th date is meaningless, the date on which the administration wanted to shut this down. the date often referred to as the daca deadline for congress to act. number two it means we re not
what happened in the last 13 1/2 hours, and even yesterday afternoon, when chuck schumer went to the cheeseburger lunch at the white house, coming out thinking he had at least the mechanics of a deal with the president, how long do you think this potentially can go on, seema? i would hope for the country s sake it doesn t go on for that long because the last time we had one of these it lasted two weeks and cost the taxpayers $22 billion. if it starts stretching to two weeks, i do think lawmakers will face more pressure, as it costs americans money, to get it done. sarah, do you think there s any chance there will be a short term cr that will, you know, amply precede the march 5th date for daca to be decided, legally speaking? i think the likelihood right now is that we will see some sort of short term cr. we ve heard talk about one that lasts from a few days to four weeks, like something that passed the house.
talk about the reality of the whole situation and take off from what cornyn and graham have said of the necessity of you working with us, and you re doing that by having this meeting and other meetings as well. but we ve always talked in the united states senate about the necessity of getting 60 votes and that s pretty darn tough. but if we would right a bill that you don t like and you veto it, we re talking about a 67 vote threshold. two-thirds in the united states senate. so that s a reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign. the second reality is the march 5th date that s coming up. because if we don t do some good faith negotiation and make progress and get a bill on the the floor of the united states senate, our leader s going to have to bring up either the house bill or the bill that some of us has introduced in the united states senate and we re going to have a vote on it. and those people that don t want to vote to legalize daca kids
threshold. two thirds in the senate. that s the reality of negotiating in good faith and getting something you can sign. the second reality is the march 5th date that s coming up. if we don t do some good faith negotiation and make progress and get a bill on the floor of the united states senate, our leader will have to bring up the house bill or the bill that some of us have introduced in the united states senate and we are going to have to vote on it. those people that don t want to vote to legalize daca kids are going to have to explain why they have not wanted to protect the vulnerable people. they are talking about everything except doing something for the daca kids. i would vote for a path to citizenship which is not very easy for me, but i would do it just as an effort. there are certain things we have that we are going do. that has to be brought up.