- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
OK. I understand the court recognized Trump has the legal ability to eliminate DACA but they disagreed with his means of doing so; because of this disagreement, DACA still stands. Can anyone explain this in terms a layman could understand? What was the disagreement? What would constitute a legitimate dismantling in the eyes of the court?
-
-
I guess contriving the reason for an EO is not allowed. I guess judges get to decide what is contrived. I guess “rule of law” is a contrived reason? Haven’t read the decision. Low information commenter here.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
its called the Administrative Procedures Act and basically the court ruled that trump failed to articulate reasonable and non-pretextual (read b.s. reasons) reasons for the program’s elimination. The Act is in place to make presidents do their job in a reasonable and professional manner and not just eliminate programs or other laws with the swipe of a hand. Which is what trump tried to do.
-
-
Trump`s purpose was not to send DACA kids back to Mexico or elsewhere. It was to be used to give him leverage as a negotiating tool for an immigration law with Dem consent that makes sense and is reasonable. Apparently Roberts would prefer illegal immigration and no immigration statutes as the law of the land as the Dems prefer for voting reasons.
-
Rocky I don’t think that is what Robert’s wants at all. Not at all. What you just said is that Trump was/is using DACA as a weapon in negotiations. So I think you can clearly see why that isn’t a very good reason to eliminate an otherwise valid program that was validly created by the prior president (understanding that many folks did not agree with that program or the manner in which it was created, but frankly that water is down the river now). That reason, as you articulate it, doesn’t pass legal muster under the Administrative whatever act.
What Roberts said, its not a particularly mucky opinion, is “Mr. President, with all due respect, do a better a job of articulating why this needs to happen.” Not the first time a court has told this president to take a bit more time and do a better job. You can hate the ruling, you can hate the rule itself, but if the shoe were on the other foot, you’d love the rule. And that shoe may change feet again in November. Same type of thing as the poor dems are reaping now with the Harry REid rule in the Senate.
-
[quote quote=594]You can hate the ruling, you can hate the rule itself, but if the shoe were on the other foot, you’d love the rule. And that shoe may change feet again in November. Same type of thing as the poor dems are reaping now with the Harry REid rule in the Senate.[/quote]
Truth.
DACA is an extralegal program. If it’s “valid” because one president (well, cabinet secretary in Obama’s example) declared it so, then it should be invalid if another president declared it so; but that’s not how things work. It’s mean to remove a program that benefits people, and we don’t want the government to be mean. Except to conservatives…those we can be mean to.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
[quote quote=594]…What you just said is that Trump was/is using DACA as a weapon in negotiations. [/quote]
Your sign on with Rocky’s assertion, which I agree with by the way, suggests the Orange One is playing hardball in trying to get the Congress to do their job. What a mean SOB he is. The House & the Senate are such collegial bodies, don’t you know. The Orange One should never offend their sensibilities.
Robert’s as the leader of a fully nonpartisan judiciary is such a “uniter”. After all, he just saw first hand how focused they are on discharging their responsibilities…the impeachment hearings. He sat on his ass for a month in the Senate listening to purely political bs unable to do his day job? He has sat on his hands as political pukes shut down the government using his FISA court as the political hammer. I forget, has the Chief Justice dropped the hammer on that folly?
I’m sure comprehensive immigration reform is the next thing on the agenda for our legislative betters, right after their kneel down in African robes…other than Nadler who couldn’t kneel as he’d never get up. Robert’s just wants business as usual…you good with that Roscoe…during times like these?
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long -
I am not here to defend Roberts. I disagree with trump’s trying to use DACA as weapon… wrong weapon in my opinion. immigration reform is a bi-partisan clusterhoozle and both sides are to blame and I blame both sides. Trump’s inability to lead his own party forward on the issue is curious.
Robert’s just said do a better job Mr. President. I am sure he has a few competent people left over there that write a few more coherent sentences and move forward with it again. But, when you do a crappy job the first time, sometimes you end up stuck and out of time…ask Jimmy Carter how that felt.
Frankly, it seems to me that trumpo’s team should have been able to anticipate this loss and already had a far better written set of explanations tee’d up and ready to rock today. Why the wait?
-
-
Roscoe, a couple of things.
In my limited understanding, USSC ruled on the procedure rather than the legality of the action. Justice Thomas hit the nail on the head.“Thomas’ main objection to the majority of the court, which voted to uphold the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program, also called DACA, in the face of Trump efforts to roll it back, was that the Obama administration did not go through the proper channels in the first place. Thomas said because of that, Trump should have been able to dismantle the program without justification.”
Obama questioned if had authority to legally implement DACA. When Congress wouldn’t act, he did. Trump gave Congress a chance to implement a LEGAL version of DACA, giving it 6 months. Granted, he wanted his wall, end of chain migration and the lottery. Dems could have gotten DACA and more, but they refused to budge and give Trump a win. How is Trump’s action remarkably different from Obama’s?
“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may,” the Chief Justice wrote. “The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”
Thomas countered with:”Then-Attorney General Sessions correctly concluded that this ultra vires program should be rescinded. These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct,” Thomas said. “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.”
Thomas also said that even though the reason DHS gave for the rescinding the policy — that DACA was not done under the proper legal authority — was more than enough, it wasn’t even required to do that.
“Nothing in the APA suggests that DHS was required to spill any ink justifying the rescission of an invalid legislative rule, let alone that it was required to provide policy justifications beyond acknowledging that the program was simply unlawful from the beginning,” he said.
Sotomayor railed that Roberts should have considered Trumps comments about Hipanics as racist, and racism was his motivation for rescinding DACA. So now we have a ruling about process and intent. No examination of Trump rolling back an illegal XO, but did he follow correct procedure and was it racially motivated.
For those celebrating the decision, claiming DACA is saved, just ain’t so. Dreamers are still in jeopardy until Congress passes a law that gives legal status. All that happened is more uncertainty for Dreamers.
“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,” Thomas wrote. “The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own.”
The majority opened the door for more executive order fookery. What stops Trump- or a future president – from writing executive orders that will stand for years waiting for courts?
-
I’ll repeat myself, the court’s ruling was purely procedural, and trumpo can do a better job the next time. its not hard to understand and Thomas makes great points, but what he forgot to say was, there is an existing set of laws in place that trumpo didn’t comply with according to the 5 prevailing justices. He can quibble with Obama’s order all he wants, but that order wasn’t in front of them, trumpo’s order was.
-
-
you follow the APA. doesn’t matter if Obama didn’t, that wasn’t the issue before the court. Have you ever heard the old phrase two wrongs don’t make a right. Why are we talking about this, this is so obvious.
Let’s try this…if Thomas was right someone would have taken that case to court in 2013 and it already would have been to the Supremes long before Trump took office. Thomas is wrong or the GOP had so sack.
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.