SCOTUS rules in favor of DACA!

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Whoa, deja vu.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump's on it folks! DACA is good as dead, after he gets a solution to killing it... on Twitter.

As President of the United States, I am asking for a legal solution on DACA, not a political one, consistent with the rule of law. The Supreme Court is not willing to give us one, so now we have to start this process all over again.

Wah! SCOTUS didn't do my job for me.

 

[Metaphor]

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 must say, I find it strange that a program can be started for any reason or no reason at all (at least: I assume Obama didn't have to convince a court he was allowed to start DACA) but that rescinding it requires a "good reason". A good reason according to whom? And doesn't this mean an incoming President after Trump will have his hands tied by some executive orders made by Trump?

 

[J842P]

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 must say, I find it strange that a program can be started for any reason or no reason at all (at least: I assume Obama didn't have to convince a court he was allowed to start DACA) but that rescinding it requires a "good reason". A good reason according to whom? And doesn't this mean an incoming President after Trump will have his hands tied by some executive orders made by Trump?

There are legal protocols to how these sorts of things have to get done. Most administrations manage to follow these procedures, but the Trump administration is fundamentally incompetant, which is why they can't even go through the basic hurdles.


Yes, this means that people would have to go through these procedures to rescind an EO from a previous administration. This was apparently something enacted in the middle of the 20th century... almost 100 years ago. These sorts of things probably easily handled by your typical administration, but again, the Trump administration is incompetent and inept. Trump has fired all the competent people in his administration. I suspect it is little more than a rubber-stamp given the nature of expanding executive power in the last century, but the Trump admin can't even handle that. Because again, it is lead by an incompetent buffoon who has surrounded himself by yes-men.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I must say, I find it strange that a program can be started for any reason or no reason at all (at least: I assume Obama didn't have to convince a court he was allowed to start DACA) but that rescinding it requires a "good reason". A good reason according to whom? And doesn't this mean an incoming President after Trump will have his hands tied by some executive orders made by Trump?

There are legal protocols to how these sorts of things have to get done. Most administrations manage to follow these procedures, but the Trump administration is fundamentally incompetant, which is why they can't even go through the basic hurdles.


Yes, this means that people would have to go through these procedures to rescind an EO from a previous administration. This was apparently something enacted in the middle of the 20th century... almost 100 years ago. These sorts of things probably easily handled by your typical administration, but again, the Trump administration is incompetent and inept. Trump has fired all the competent people in his administration. I suspect it is little more than a rubber-stamp given the nature of expanding executive power in the last century, but the Trump admin can't even handle that. Because again, it is lead by an incompetent buffoon who has surrounded himself by yes-men.

Anyone remember C. Everett Koop?
Reagan's surgeon general? White House officials told him to write a report about the negative life impacts on women who have abortions. He looked into it. He found no credible study dupporting this thing that conservatives just took for granted as a fact. He resigned, rathervthan write a bogus report, or work any further with assholes who didn't care about the facts, just told him to write it, anyway.

Donny doesn't have anyone competent enough to research the facts, first.

 

[J842P]

I must say, I find it strange that a program can be started for any reason or no reason at all (at least: I assume Obama didn't have to convince a court he was allowed to start DACA) but that rescinding it requires a "good reason". A good reason according to whom? And doesn't this mean an incoming President after Trump will have his hands tied by some executive orders made by Trump?

There are legal protocols to how these sorts of things have to get done. Most administrations manage to follow these procedures, but the Trump administration is fundamentally incompetant, which is why they can't even go through the basic hurdles.


Yes, this means that people would have to go through these procedures to rescind an EO from a previous administration. This was apparently something enacted in the middle of the 20th century... almost 100 years ago. These sorts of things probably easily handled by your typical administration, but again, the Trump administration is incompetent and inept. Trump has fired all the competent people in his administration. I suspect it is little more than a rubber-stamp given the nature of expanding executive power in the last century, but the Trump admin can't even handle that. Because again, it is lead by an incompetent buffoon who has surrounded himself by yes-men.

Anyone remember C. Everett Koop?
Reagan's surgeon general? White House officials told him to write a report about the negative life impacts on women who have abortions. He looked into it. He found no credible study dupporting this thing that conservatives just took for granted as a fact. He resigned, rathervthan write a bogus report, or work any further with assholes who didn't care about the facts, just told him to write it, anyway.

Donny doesn't have anyone competent enough to research the facts, first.

Yup, exactly.