Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That Trump Admin Cannot Cancel DACA

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 That Trump Admin Cannot Cancel DACA

Trump: “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justices.aspx

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that President Donald Trump’s administration cannot cancel DACA.

Chief Justice John Roberts and other liberal judges wrote the opinion.

READ THE OPINION HERE.

The five judges decided “that the administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act.”

From Fox News:

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern,'” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”

Roberts wrote that the administration “failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance,” as well as the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program.

“That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner,” Roberts wrote. “The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

In other words, the administration can try again to end DACA. The officials just need to find other reasons.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the dissent:

“These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct. Instead, the majority today concludes that DHS was required to do far more.”

He continued: “Without grounding its position in either the APA or precedent, the majority declares that DHS was required to overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law. This holding is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority. I would therefore reverse the judgments below and remand with instructions to dissolve the nationwide injunctions.”

Trump responded:

President Barack Obama unveiled the DACA program in 2012, which provides “protection from deportation and work permits for people who arrived in the U.S. before they turned 16 and satisfied other conditions, including being a student or graduate and having no significant criminal record.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Roberts strikes again.

    Virginia42 in reply to Exiliado. | June 18, 2020 at 11:18 am

    Roberts and the Court lefties are a disgrace. They aren’t even trying to hide their legislating bias.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Virginia42. | June 19, 2020 at 1:46 am

      Who can dig into this and keep going.

      Would 100% explain the Leftist CONservatives on the Supreme Court.

      “….the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

      As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover

      that both organizations are being funded by

      the ultra-left wing Google ideology.

      Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech…..”

      The Big Con – The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are Being Funded by Google?…

      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/18/the-big-con-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-federalist-society-are-being-funded-by-google/

    guyjones in reply to Exiliado. | June 18, 2020 at 11:34 am

    Roberts is not the Chief Justice of the United States — he is the Chief Warlock/Sorcerer/Necromancer of the United States, conjuring up new law and “rights,” daily, out of thin air, according to whatever incantations are passing through his dishonest brain, at a given moment.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Exiliado. | June 18, 2020 at 1:05 pm

    Stay the course, immediately implement a new ban,even more important is block anchor babies, Require parents to be citizens in order for their offspring to be a citizen.

    MAJack in reply to Exiliado. | June 18, 2020 at 5:32 pm

    He’s a real turd.

    dystopia in reply to Exiliado. | June 19, 2020 at 5:46 am

    What troubles me most about Justice Roberts is his propensity to decide major cases of public policy by invoking procedural principles rather than deciding the issue on the merits. Hollignsworth v Perry where Roberts invoked standing as judicial legerdemain to achieve the result he wanted.

    Of all the Justices on the Court he most lacks the courage of his convictions. The United States deserves a Chief Justice with moral fortitude and courage.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Exiliado. | June 19, 2020 at 9:11 am

    What do the Founding Fathers suggested as recourse?

    DrNo76 in reply to Exiliado. | June 19, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    For a law school professor, the headline is false and misleading. It was a procedural ruling. Not a ruling that DACA cannot be ended. Professor, you know better. I certainly do.

      Edward in reply to DrNo76. | June 20, 2020 at 6:34 am

      If you had read the author attribution you would know that Professor Jacobson did not write the article.

      That being said, the practical effect of this ruling is more likely than not that DACA will not be eliminated for at least another two to three years and perhaps until Congress and a Socialist-Democrat President give amnesty to all these illegals (and more). Assuming the administration were to immediately “do it the right way”, it will be impossible for the Socialist-Democrats to ignore and the usual activists (plus a few more) will rush to find the most friendly District Court to file suit. That will wend it’s way, with delays as long as Trump is President, through the court system to eventually arrive at the SCOTUS, most likely from the Ninth Circus, where Roberts and the four Socialist-Democrat Associate Justices will find another pretext to pass on a making a decision based in statute, or at least statute as written, passed by Congress and signed into the US Code by any President of the US. They may well make up a new statute made of whole cloth to their liking.

WTF? Obama makes this shit up out of thin air, but Trump can’t cancel it?

    Voyager in reply to Paul. | June 18, 2020 at 10:49 am

    Yep. That’s how it works now. Democrats can make shit up out of thin air, and everyone else is expected to abide by and enforce it from now until the end of days.

    About half the Supreme Court needs to be impeached. This cannot go on if we expect to have any semblance of a rule of law.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Voyager. | June 18, 2020 at 11:07 am

      Cancel the Supreme Court?

      Katy L. Stamper in reply to Voyager. | June 18, 2020 at 12:03 pm

      Voyager beat me to it. We need to impeach Gorsuch and Roberts.

      What are the state of the races for the GOP to take over the House?

      Anybody know?

      I called my House rep and my two Senators, Perdue and the female appointee. Impeach, impeach, impeach.

      And some legislation to kill SCOTUS/district court jurisdiction wouldn’t hurt.

        Voyager in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | June 18, 2020 at 5:02 pm

        Not just Roberts. Kagan, Sotameyer and Ginsburg have been full and enthusiastic participants in the gutting of law in favor of politics.

        If Roberts has violated his path to defend the Constitution, they have done so even more egregiously for longer and will less shame. All of them must be removed from office over these perversions of justice.

        Tom Servo in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | June 18, 2020 at 5:27 pm

        before you get too excited about impeachment, remember that unless Nancy Pelosi agrees, Impeachment of anybody never gets off the launch pad. You gotta have her personal approval to do anything.

          Voyager in reply to Tom Servo. | June 18, 2020 at 7:35 pm

          Well, yes. As long as Pelosi is Speaker of the House she will block it. Further it requires a super-majority in the Senate. It’s not a trivial process. However this is not a trivial problem either.

          If the highest court of the land is willing to ignore the plain language of the pact all Americans are bound too, how can we continue to have a single country? If the law has no meaning beyond what is convenient to the lords of DC, what, then, binds us together?

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | June 19, 2020 at 1:49 am

        Anyone know any thing about this?????

        “….the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

        As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover

        that both organizations are being funded by

        the ultra-left wing Google ideology.

        Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech…..”

        The Big Con – The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society are Being Funded by Google?…

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/18/the-big-con-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-federalist-society-are-being-funded-by-google/

          If you post the same message and link, with a different introduction, you are rapidly approaching spamming instead of commenting. You aren’t having the same impact because it is irritating to read the same thing with a few words changed.

    Miles in reply to Paul. | June 18, 2020 at 11:01 am

    Confirms one thing in my mind, Roberts hates Trump’s guts.

    That line back in ’18 from Trump about Judge Jon S. Tigar, being an ‘Obama judge’ must have really ticked Roberts off.

    If Trump gets reelected and Justice Ginsburg or another of the ‘liberal wing’ of the court kicks off, the replacement nominee may make Justice Thomas look like he’s a raving leftist.

    n.n in reply to Paul. | June 18, 2020 at 12:08 pm

    Everything is legal and moral (“ethical”) under the Twilight Amendment, which, among other things, resurrected human sacrificial rites (“reproductive” rites, planned parenthood), diversity (i.e. color judgments) including racism and sexism, political congruence (“=”) or selective exclusion, etc.

Laws mean nothing to Judges anymore. If they can choose to ignore laws, we can choose to ignore judges.

    Barry in reply to Dr. Ransom. | June 18, 2020 at 11:11 am

    Yes. It is coming to that.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Dr. Ransom. | June 18, 2020 at 11:28 am

    It might be time to change the meaning of the phrase “hangin’ judge”, putting the emphasis on the second word of the phrase.

    Katy L. Stamper in reply to Dr. Ransom. | June 18, 2020 at 12:04 pm

    Trump should have been ignoring judges. Bill Barr keeps telling him to listen to them.

    I think Barr should re-read some of the founding fathers’ papers and find out what they thought about this kind of miscreant behavior.

      Tom Servo in reply to Katy L. Stamper. | June 18, 2020 at 5:40 pm

      The sad fact is that Trump doesn’t have enough support from the military to get away with that. With the support of the Dem leadership, they’d launch a coup.

Time for Trump to do executive orders for Concealed carry in all states. We need to protect ourselves AND we have the right to. To hell with checks and balances, because it is obvious they don’t matter anymore.

    Mac45 in reply to wendybar. | June 18, 2020 at 11:28 am

    Actually, the 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the regulation of ownership or carry of any weapon, by the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies that prohibition to the states. So, technically, no one NEEDS a permit to carry a firearm anywhere in the US. The problem is that both state and federal courts keep rewriting the 2nd Amendment to provide exceptions which allow regulation. This includes the SCOTUS, in both Heller and McDonald.

    Sammy in reply to wendybar. | June 18, 2020 at 10:58 pm

    wendy, even if Trump issued an EO on conceal carry, the blue state gulags would just deny it anyway.

    Honestly, at this point,
    when Big Tech companies ban free speech,
    when rioters smash, burn beat and rob
    when masked communist goons declare war on America,
    when illegals still pour across the border

    in short, when every hate filled criminal zealot out there does WHATEVER THEY DAMNED WELL WANT, and they are NEVER punished,

    then why are WE the only folks still following the rules?

    Screw ’em! I’m not getting killed because I’m the wrong color, or because I used the wrong pronoun or because “property is theft”

    Time for all decent Americans to arm up and defend their rights to live and be left alone, by any means necessary

Held: An illegal executive order by the President cannot be rescinded by a President on the basis of its illegality alone.

This would be an alarming precedent but for the fact that it doesn’t seem likely this Court would bind itself to such a precedent if it becomes inconvenient. The decision seems political.

    tedhas in reply to tedhas. | June 18, 2020 at 11:20 am

    J. Thomas (dissent): “DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.”

      Neo in reply to tedhas. | June 18, 2020 at 9:05 pm

      The upside (or downside): there is now a SCOTUS ruling that says you can’t change anything until the paperwork is filled out correctly.

      Now, imagine an Administration that somehow keeps doing the paperwork improperly on programs it doesn’t like.

      The Executive Toolkit has just been enlarged.

      Edward in reply to tedhas. | June 20, 2020 at 6:50 am

      And Associate Justice Thomas has it exactly right. There are folks who insist on saying DACA was instituted with an Executive Order (EO). Nothing could be further from the truth. This “program” was instituted by a memorandum issued by the Department of Homeland Security (a misnomer for sure in the last administration) and signed by the Secretary of the Department, Janet Napolitano.

      The President issues EOs in the Federal government. His Imperial Executiveness had stated a number of times he didn’t have the power to do this, so he let Napolitano do the illegal act. And now we have Roberts and the gang of four claiming the illegal act must be rescinded only through the routine legal method. We need to be taking names for the day when we are able to kick a$$es.

WashingtonLawyer | June 18, 2020 at 11:23 am

He’s out Warrening Earl Warren. No one has done more, other than Obummer, to fundamentally alter the landscape and fabric of this country in the last decade-and-a-half, and not for the better.

This is absurd — so, the sainted Obama’s lawless end-run to circumvent Congress in implementing DACA, wasn’t “arbitrary and capricious,” but, Obama’s elected successor’s decision to nullify his lawless act, is? Ridiculous.

Roberts is worse than Souter, by far — a transparently politically-minded, unprincipled, greasy, malleable and dishonest Chief Justice-warlock of the U.S., proffering sophistry, conjuring up new “rights” out of thin air, usurping legislators’ roles and powers (and, by extension, the People’s power) and adhering to a corrupt jurisprudence that is predicated upon narcissism and dishonest, semantic voodoo.

Also, note Robert’s inconsistent, faux judicial modesty — one day after the absurdly arrogant and decidedly immodest decision to expand Title VII protections far beyond the plain words of the statute, to trannies and homosexuals, now, all of a sudden, Roberts shifts into his “modest umpire” posture, to state that he doesn’t rule on the merits of DACA – he only upholds it on the most specious grounds and the thinnest of legal reeds. Oh, how magnanimous and sagacious of him! What a posturing phony this guy is. A brazenly dishonest piece of work.

The SCOTUS just keeps undermining its credibility at every turn. This is another bogus decision based upon feelings, not the law. Justice Thomas summed this up nicely in his dissent.

This decision and other recent decisions are good examples for why this is not the time for 2A cases to be accepted by the SCOTUS.

Another “but Trump” exception where because it is President Trump the normal rules do not apply.

    guyjones in reply to CountMontyC. | June 18, 2020 at 12:14 pm

    “Sine qua non Trump.” A new legal doctrine, applying only to him. Meaning, the judges would have reached a different result, “but for” the fact that Trump is the President, at present.

Am I misreading this, or can Trump try again with a different supporting argument (not that he needs one at all…)?

    alohahola in reply to MTED. | June 18, 2020 at 12:16 pm

    Perhaps make the Department of Homeland Security’s action less “arbitrary and capricious” and thus fully lawful?

    MarkS in reply to MTED. | June 18, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    That was the same requirement on the Census citizenship question and we saw how that worked out!

    Observer in reply to MTED. | June 18, 2020 at 5:14 pm

    Yes, so long as the Trump DHS jumps through the correct APA hoops (the very same hoops that Obama’s DHS ignored when they created the unconstitutional DACA and DAPA programs), they can try again to rescind the programs.

    On the plus side, the majority admits that the Obama DHS exceeded its authority when it authorized benefits for the illegal aliens (benefits like work permits and SS numbers), so those benefits should be easier to rescind now.

      ConradCA in reply to Observer. | June 19, 2020 at 1:06 am

      Couldn’t Trump just cancel the parts of DACA that violate the constitution because they require an act of Congress?

      Like cancel the SS numbers and green cards.

I also observe that Justice Thomas’s dissent in this case, as with his dissent in the Title VII case, yesterday, is superbly-written. But, it strikes me that what Thomas and his clerks do, in drafting these opinions, is merely stick to the most common-sense, rational and judicially modest approaches to facts, law, legislative history/intent, statutory language, etc. That’s it. No flowery prose. No semantic parsing and smoke and mirrors fallacies. Just simple, honest, Legal Interpretation 101.

As soon as I read the “fortune cookie,” feel-good prose contained in the opening paragraph of the Obergefell decision, I knew the majority’s opinion was going to be grounded in fallacy, dishonesty and sophistry. Why? Because, when the opening lines of a SCOTUS opinion are rooted in flowery rhetoric about how the “U.S. Constitution promises to all within its reach…” blah blah blah, you know the author is avoiding grounding the decision in law and facts, because he cannot.

My final thought on all this — going back to the Obamacare decision, the Title VII farce opinion released yesterday, today’s absurdity — is that the Dhimmi-crats don’t care about law, or, statutory fidelity, or, upholding democratic/legislative process. They don’t give a damn how their conceits are upheld/enshrined as law, as long as they are. The end result is what they care about; not the process. Sure, the Dhimmi-crats would have loved to see Obamcare upheld as valid under the Commerce Clause, but, they’ll take Roberts’s ridiculous Taxing Power conceit, all the same, because the end result is the same — the abomination is enshrined as law.

overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies
ANd there’s the problem with the decision. “Oh, hey, nobody complained about the bogus implementation, so you’re stuck having to argue why you think you can UN-implement it.”

All three branches of our national gov’t are currently in revolt (to varying degrees) against the Constitution and natural law. I really hope they soon all suffer the most severe consequences for it – preferably without us suffering along with them. (I can dream, can’t I?)

With the decisions this week, Roberts has stamped himself as a card-carrying member of the Resistance.

Well this is a novel interpretation of the APA. In sum the court has effectively stated that the policy preferences initiated by Executive Order can be undone by a subsequent Executive, but must follow APA rule making/changing requirements.

So, PDJT should now embrace this position. Draft Executive Orders every other day to implement his policy preferences. Then issue ‘findings’ followed by EO when presented any bill for signature.

The only way to discourage mischief when SCOTUS changes the rules midstream is to embrace the new rules and force your opponents to live with the consequences. Now PDJT gets to hamstring his successor, via EO, for several years into his successors administration. Tough cookies.

    Mac45 in reply to CommoChief. | June 18, 2020 at 1:16 pm

    You obviously do not understand the mentality of those changing the rules. They change the rules, without justification, t achieve a result. So, if they change the rules to damage Trump and his policies, they will simply change the rules again to benefit their President. Once you allow people to arbitrarily and unilaterally change the rules, you have lost the battle and, maybe, the war.

      CommoChief in reply to Mac45. | June 18, 2020 at 1:35 pm

      Mac45,

      On the contrary I am well aware of how the rules can be changed to benefit another. In this case the court has explicitly endorsed the proposition that an EO and it’s subsequent administrative enforcement MUST follow the APA in spite of the fact that the EO and it’s administrative enforcement was NOT authorized by Congress.

      Well alrighty then let’s get to work pushing this new standard where the sun don’t shine. I have made it a point my entire life to ensure that foolish decisions like this one are repeatedly jammed up the posterior of those who cheer them.

      I can’t speak to your experiences nor your chosen course of action following a travesty such as this.

      My experience in giving the folks who cheer on these things a dose of their own medicine very good, very hard and very painfully is that they soon relent.

        Mac45 in reply to CommoChief. | June 18, 2020 at 1:56 pm

        Why wouldn’t they push it back later, to benefit another President? All they have to do is make up more BS about fairness. Then of course, the court, at that time, can say that its or the previous court’s decision was simply in error. It has happened before. When people are allowed to be arbitrary and unilaterally change the rules and the people, to whom those rules apply, go along with it, to any degree, all is lost. The best thing to do, in such cases, is to simply ignore the unsupported change in the rules and continue on as you were. Make the arbiters enforce it or negotiate a suitable compromise.

        lichau in reply to CommoChief. | June 18, 2020 at 3:20 pm

        I understand your point but the problem is that if the SCOTUS makes up the rules, they make up the rules.

What was supposed to be the most conservative and constructionist Supreme Court ever has turned into one that may even be more liberal and activist than Earl Warren’s.

Can Trump modify the elements of DACA if he can’t rescind it? Convolute the hell out of it. Modify it each month so the court challenges become moot.

    Seems fair. The original EO was rather vague on some points, so issuing a series of EOs as ‘clarifications’ would help. For example, positively identifying the DACA status of individuals by requiring them to be fingerprinted and tracked, setting a special classification for them under immigration law as “Foreign nationals temporarily residing in the US while undergoing review of status” or such, allowing a ‘path to US citizenship’ provided the individual provides verified proof of birth and sworn affidavits of X years of US residency, starting before their 18th birthday, setting a cap of X per year admitted provided they fulfill all other requirements of US citizenship, allowing deportation without a hearing upon conviction of any felony while in DACA status, etc…

    CommoChief in reply to TX-rifraph. | June 18, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    TX-rifraph,

    Better yet defang the DACA/dreamer political issue by following the Obama administration guidelines. Exercise ‘prosecutorial discretion’ and adjudicate every applicant’s case.

    Everyone who met the conditions for applying under DACA and has maintained it’s requirements could be moved pretty quickly. Have the roughly 3/4 million people who applied be reviewed for current eligibility and following that grant the Damn deferred action from removal. Grant a yellow card that could be upgraded to a green card assuming no convictions and no use of the updated list of broad categories of welfare benefits.

    Do that proactively and the issue is, for all intents, gone. Sure there will be those who file appeals but as long as you only exclude those not meeting the Obama administration’s DACA guidelines they will eventually be told to pound sand.

    On the heels of this, my recommendation would be to issue a moratorium on all non standard visa programs. Then increase normal standard visa to say 1.2 million. That has the practical effect of PDJT increasing normal immigration opportunities while denying corporations the ability to recruit foreign workers to the U.S. during a period of mass unemployment.

    PDJT this shores up his Latino support, and he does have a much larger amount of support than you will hear in the MSM, while positioning himself as supporting American workers over imported foreign workers during an economic crisis.

    Biden and the d party can’t really spin their way out of the trap. A suggested headline:

    Trump exceeds Obama in granting the dream for DACA recipients.

I don’t know what dirt Obama held over the head of Chief Justice Roberts, but apparently he is still holding it.

    DuxRedux in reply to jpwcpa. | June 18, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    Obama’s dirty fingerprints are on everything these days . . . is Bill Barr, like John Roberts, another one of his tools?

    Something smells.

    alohahola in reply to jpwcpa. | June 18, 2020 at 1:25 pm

    Do spill, Obama!

    MarkS in reply to jpwcpa. | June 18, 2020 at 3:05 pm

    Somehow, Roberts got two children out of Ireland, in defiance of Irish law, to get as his own in a Central American “private adoption” so they could reside in the United States. There should be something impeachable in all of that!

Reason #4,567,298 why lifetime appointments need to end. Also apply same to lack of term limits on Senate and House.

Trump needs to come out with an executive order at 8am with ICE agents rounding up the DACA illegal aliens and put them into deportation camps and run the planes every hour.

The problem is SCOTUS is corrupt, but no one will even think of going against them – as if they are the big branch of government and the rest just take suggestions.

They are poodles and chihuahuas biting at Trumps ankles.
Trump needs to kick them hard enough to get a couple field goals.

Make no mistake, his base is watching – from the Tea Party through his election we were told we had to vote GOP because, judges. The legislature AND executive can limit the courts. Start with splitting the 9th circus. Add “No Judicial Review allowed” clauses to every bill. But I don’t think they will do it.

Clarence Thomas rocks. I never new much till reading his autobio…he’s awesome.

Hope Kavanaugh also holds true.

Trump says the justices don’t like him? Yet my impression, since the beginning of this Administration, is that the Trump legal team isn’t the most competent at winning arguments. Just look at the first rulings on the “Muslim ban” from the Ninth Circuit – they actually included tips on how to better argue to the court! And today’s ruling also leaves open the possibility that DACA may be unconstitutional BUT it wasn’t well-argued by the Trump team, hence the Administration lost the argument.

    Barry in reply to Solomon2. | June 18, 2020 at 5:17 pm

    How about 5 of the supreme court “justices” are corrupt to the core and don’t give a damn about the very constitution they were sent to uphold?

    The problem isn’t the legal counsel of the president, the problem is a corrupt government with a corrupt SC providing cover for it.

the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program

Why is this in the least bit relevant? Since when did beneficiaries of ultra vires acts have standing?

    Observer in reply to randian. | June 18, 2020 at 5:22 pm

    The “reliance” argument is bogus, because the DACA and DAPA permits themselves say that they don’t confer any substantive rights to the illegals, and they can be withdrawn by the government at any time. Furthermore, there is an entire body of law that says that deferral decisions can’t be the basis for a reliance claim by law-breakers, since prosecutors have the sole right to make the deferral decision, and they can change their minds and withdraw the deferral if they choose.

    But Roberts and his fellow leftists just ignored those precedents, and the explicit language in the Obama permits too, because they had a result they wanted to reach and they were willing to contort themselves into logical pretzels to get there (we saw this in the Obamacare ruling (“it’s a tax, except when it’s not a tax”) too.

How is it that Obama can break the law and constitution without consequences, yet Trump can’t stop Obama’s unconstitutional and illegal actions. Trump should stop the portions of DACA that violate the constitution.

Furthermore, Trump should do things proactively to further conservative objectives. Implement conceal carry shall issue by the Federal Government by using the powers of the federal government. One way to do this is to deputize people who qualify for CCW licenses and those who have CCW permits as deputy US Marshall’s with CCW permits.

I’m sure all good Americans are gravely concerned with the Administrative Procedures Act, whatever it is. WTF!

What happens if Trump ignores the Court rulings? Seems like Obama did that to some lower court rulings while he was in office. What would they do – take him to court? Not my preferred choice but the court is out of control.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to r2468. | June 19, 2020 at 6:41 am

    What happens if Trump ignores the Court rulings?

    House Impeachment Proceedings v2.0

DACA was an executive order put in by Obozo. Executive orders can be rescinded by a new President. Unless five libfucks on SCOTUS make up some fake crap that they CAN’T be undone.

Anyone else here just DONE with us being the only people who follow the rules and obey the law?

Clarence Thomas is the best justice on the Supreme Court for the past 30 years

John Roberts is an unholy ƒaggot.

Lucifer Morningstar | June 19, 2020 at 6:53 am

The five judges decided “that the administration’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act.”

But according to wikipedia:

Courts have also held that the U.S. President is not an agency under the APA. Franklin v. Mass., 505 U.S. 788 (1992).

So how can the Supreme Court rule that the administration has violated the APA when the court has determined the APA doesn’t apply to the executive office of the President.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States)

Lucifer Morningstar | June 19, 2020 at 6:55 am

Franklin v. Mass., 505 U.S. 788 (1992) if anyone is interested in reading it is here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/788/

(b) The President’s actions are not reviewable under the APA. He is not specifically included in the APA’s purview, and respect for the separation of powers and the President’s unique constitutional position makes textual silence insufficient to subject him to its provisions. Pp.800-801.

John Eastman was on the Ingraham Angle, and he thinks that this can be challenged again, and quickly, something about dotting “t”s and crossing “i”s. It is all really frustrating to those of us out in the weeds.

I hope he is right,,, that there will be another push to cancel DACA, by July. Eastman seems to be an optimist.

Kevin Smith | June 19, 2020 at 9:54 am

Could Obama have implemented reparations as an executive order? There probably was a way to get the money or some compensation without going thru Congress. Instead of sending money, Obama could reduce or eliminate the taxes of those eligible for reparations for the next 50 years. And then once the executive order was started the next President would be unable to cancel the clearly unconstitutional executive order since the impact on the recipients would be too grave.

The concerns at the time that Roberts was a fake conservative have been amply vindicated.
Where is Rehnquist when you really need him? How long. do. we have to put up with the three bitches?

In the vein of “if you can’t beat them, join them” perhaps instead of eliminating Obama’s illegal / unconstitutional DACA, Trump ought to make it worse. Much worse.

How about a new EO to create a new class of “permanent alien” for DACA recipients and their offspring whether the product of 2 DACA recipients, or 1 DACA / 1 US Citizen. No path to US Citizenship at all. No Federal government benefits. No SS/Medicare. No voting in Federal elections (President, US Senator, US State Rep). No military service, no GI benefits. No access to the Federal court system. No Fed. education grants, etc., etc. Since taxation without representation would be an issue, they would not be subject to FIT or SS/Medicare taxes. Treat them akin to American Indians under treaty, but without treaty land(s). Subject to state governments, they can buy homes, vote instate elections and chose local representatives. But are responsible to make their own way without Federal benefit. Save road use, military protection in times of war.

Note such might make liberals howl. /sarc

Roberts needs to resign. He is obviously compromised. Its not natural for a grown man to always look like hes fixing to start crying whenever he is forced to vote with the leftist. Maybe the spirit of the 25th amendment would convince him to pack it in. There’s definently something wrong wuth him or his situation. Some say its a pedo rap involving two children he illegaly imported from god knows where. All I know is that for a chief justice he is bringing shame and disgrace to SCOTUS.

Roberts is facially corrupt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

It’s therefore reasonable to speculate, rather than to uncivilly assert without evidence, that Obama’s intelligence apparatus did some of its “best” work earlier than currently understood in finding something shameful and career-ending enough on the CJUS to effectively blackmail him for the duration of his time on the bench.

Good deal for both the Dem-Lefties and the Honorable CJUS, the admittedly wild theory runs: Roberts keeps his job for as long as he breathes and smiles at his wife every morning while the Party of the People keeps getting its lawless but favorable decisions rendered.

Again, none of this is being asserted on any sound ground; there is no evidence to hold that it is. It is mere speculation, out loud.

Accepting better, more supported theories.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend