• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

SCOTUS rules in favor of DACA!

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 12, 2001
Messages
11,420
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/us/trump-daca-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may not immediately proceed with its plan to end a program protecting about 700,000 young immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s four more liberal members.

The court’s ruling was a blow to one of President Trump’s central campaign promises — that as president he would “immediately terminate” an executive order by former President Barack Obama that Mr. Trump had called an illegal executive amnesty for hundreds of thousands of young immigrants.

Great news! Twice this week, SCOTUS has surprised me by doing the right thing.
 
Can somebody explain to me why this case was before the Court? As in, if DACA was an executive order put in place by the Obama administration, why can't an executive order end the program?

It seems like the Supreme Court has said the reason Trump gave for ending the program was that the program was illegal. And that Trump was wrong and it wasn't illegal. But...why does a reason need to be given to end the executive order of a previous President? How is it that Obama had the power to create the program but a future President does not have the power to end it, for any reason or no reason at all?
 
Man another 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts must be driving right-wingers up the wall. Granted, he said buttercream is speech, but these two decisions this week are widely important with this one giving cover to DACA for time to fire Trump. I can't wait for the Tweets.
 
Can somebody explain to me why this case was before the Court? As in, if DACA was an executive order put in place by the Obama administration, why can't an executive order end the program?
The Government can't turn on a dime. There are laws stated as such. Specifically with DACA, there are a lot of wires involved and just rescinding it creates complications. So time is required to shift the boat. Trump tried to act too quickly, which can create chaos if we keep tugging back and forth, especially with a deal created that required people illegally in the US, but not legally responsible for being in that situation raising their hands and making their presence noted.

This case could go either way, but I think the Chief Justice is saying 'slow the fuck down'. This ruling, I think, was very political but not very partisan. I believe the Chief Justice is worried about the Constitutional Infrastructure at this point.
 
Can somebody explain to me why this case was before the Court? As in, if DACA was an executive order put in place by the Obama administration, why can't an executive order end the program?

It seems like the Supreme Court has said the reason Trump gave for ending the program was that the program was illegal. And that Trump was wrong and it wasn't illegal. But...why does a reason need to be given to end the executive order of a previous President? How is it that Obama had the power to create the program but a future President does not have the power to end it, for any reason or no reason at all?

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, federal agencies have to show good reason for ending a program. DHS reasoning was insufficient.
 
Great news! Twice this week, SCOTUS has surprised me by doing the right thing.
This is a bad decision. A president should be able to override executive orders by his predecessors. Imagine if President Biden was prohibited from canceling Trump's executive orders.

The fact that you (and apparently Roberts) like illegals should not change the legality of it.
 
Can somebody explain to me why this case was before the Court? As in, if DACA was an executive order put in place by the Obama administration, why can't an executive order end the program?

It seems like the Supreme Court has said the reason Trump gave for ending the program was that the program was illegal. And that Trump was wrong and it wasn't illegal. But...why does a reason need to be given to end the executive order of a previous President? How is it that Obama had the power to create the program but a future President does not have the power to end it, for any reason or no reason at all?

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, federal agencies have to show good reason for ending a program. DHS reasoning was insufficient.
I'll let the Chief Justice explain.
article said:
“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “The basic rule here is clear: An agency must defend its actions based on the reasons it gave when it acted. This is not the case for cutting corners to allow DHS to rely upon reasons absent from its original decision.”

Roberts continued, saying “we do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern.’ Chenery II, 332 U. S., at 207. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
In other words, they flipped it on its head without thinking of the consequences and having a solution to that (other than *deport!*).
 
Great news! Twice this week, SCOTUS has surprised me by doing the right thing.
This is a bad decision. A president should be able to override executive orders by his predecessors. Imagine if President Biden was prohibited from canceling Trump's executive orders.

The fact that you (and apparently Roberts) like illegals should not change the legality of it.
I suspect you have not read the decision, which means your entire response is pure bigotry-driven conjecture.
 
Specifically with DACA, there are a lot of wires involved and just rescinding it creates complications.
Just put them on a bus going south. Not that complicated!

I'm shocked, just shocked that you of all people would say such a thing. /s

Don't you get it? They didn't give a good reason as to why DACA should be ended. Xenophobic hatred isn't a good enough reason.

Do you have any idea how many of the DACA youth are teachers, nurses, doctors etc.? We need these people and they came here through the actions of their parents. This is the only country they've ever known and you want to send them back? That's not only xenophobic, it's irrational.
 
Great news! Twice this week, SCOTUS has surprised me by doing the right thing.
This is a bad decision. A president should be able to override executive orders by his predecessors. Imagine if President Biden was prohibited from canceling Trump's executive orders.

The fact that you (and apparently Roberts) like illegals should not change the legality of it.
I suspect you have not read the decision, which means your entire response is pure bigotry-driven conjecture.

Yeah. It's not about an Executive Order, it's about ending a federal program. And to think the Evil Empire might have won this one had they said the wind-down period was so those affected could get their affairs in order prior to deportation. But no, the wind-down was so DHS could handle the administrative aspects of it.

Also, down about page 21-22 on your pdf dial, CJ Roberts kind of hands Kavanaugh his ass.
 
Don't you get it? They didn't give a good reason as to why DACA should be ended. Xenophobic hatred isn't a good enough reason.
It's not "xenophobic hatred". Those people came to the US illegally.

Do you have any idea how many of the DACA youth are teachers, nurses, doctors etc.? We need these people and they came here through the actions of their parents. This is the only country they've ever known and you want to send them back? That's not only xenophobic, it's irrational.

I would be supportive of some form of DACA. Obama defined it way too broadly. Sure, when talking about DACA people who support it always use "teachers, nurses, doctors". But getting even a 4 year degree is not required. Then they say "only country they've known", which applies to those brought here as small children, but many so-called "dreamers" have come to US illegally when they were 15 years old. The DACA rules also allow them to have been convicted of up to two crimes and still not get deported.

So, I would prefer a more tightly defined DACA rather than an outright end to it. Younger age cutoff, say 10. Stronger education/military service requirement. No allowances for criminal convictions.

As far as the law goes, a president should have the right to undo executive orders of his predecessor. No matter what you and I think of the policy.
 
Yeah. It's not about an Executive Order, it's about ending a federal program.
Which was instituted not via a law but via an executive order.

In my limited reading of the Administrative Procedures Act, I don't think it matters how DACA got there. The purpose of the APA is to control the power agencies have over these federal programs being that they can affect so many lives. They must have good reason. They can't just shitcan programs because they want to.
 
This is about upholding that law and not allowing a President totalitarian powers.

So if Trump enacts a bunch of executive orders starting new federal programs, Biden would be a "totalitarian" if he tries to end them?

Or is that only working for EOs enacted by presidents you like?
 
This is about upholding that law and not allowing a President totalitarian powers.

So if Trump enacts a bunch of executive orders starting new federal programs, Biden would be a "totalitarian" if he tries to end them?

Or is that only working for EOs enacted by presidents you like?
Try to focus. The SCOTUS ruled that the Trump administration violated existing law when it ended the program. It doesn't matter what I think of the EO.

If President _____ (you fill in the blank) violates that law in ending an EO by _____ ( you fill in the blank), then the SCOTUS should rule against that President, regardless of the content of the specific EO.

Why do you disrespect the rule of law?
 
Try to focus.
I am focused. You described the president who tries to undo an EO enacted by his predecessor as "totalitarian", which is ridiculous.

Why do you disrespect the rule of law?
It was a 5-4 decision. 4 SCOTUS justices disagreed with the majority.

Why do you pretend the issue is cut-and-dried legally speaking?
 
Try to focus.
I am focused. You described the president who tries to undo an EO enacted by his predecessor as "totalitarian", which is ridiculous.
Please read carefully. I did no such thing.

It was a 5-4 decision. 4 SCOTUS justices disagreed with the majority.

Why do you pretend the issue is cut-and-dried legally speaking?
It is cut and dried now. For some reason, you seem unable to comprehend that the issue was HOW the EO was ended. There is nothing stopping the current administration from ending it in a way that conforms with the law.

The rule of law mandates that people follow the law. SCOTUS has handed down a reasoned decision. Apparently you do not understand that a SCOTUS decision is the law.
 
The biggest difference will be that Biden won't just write an EO that says 'everything Trump said is null and void,' then act surprised when told that's not how it's done.
I would guess he's going to be prepared to write and enact actual legislation to carefully USE the law, the agencies, actual experts, and Congress, to make lasting changes that preserve anything useful, not just treat Bonespurs like Boney treated Obama, as a boogeyman who taints all he touches.
 
Back
Top Bottom