DACA Upheld by Supreme Court

[Flash]

The evil that Obama did to this country continues with the blessing of a Libtard court. Disgusting, isn't it?

 

[Mac-7]

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

Aka making up stuff as it goes along

this is judicial activism at its worst

 

[candycorn]

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

Aka making up stuff as it goes along

this is judicial activism at its worst

It was a correct ruling. The matter is settled.

 

[L.K.Eder]

In his dissent in the SCOTUS DACA case Justice Thomas says The decision is “An effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”

I agree with him that today's decision "prolong(s) DHS' initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong--the political branches."

I'm not sure DACA was "overreach" but it sure is the baliwick of Congress, not the executive branch. Justice Thomas is apparently chomping at the bit to kick DACA to the curb. Eder said "all parties agree" that DACA is unconstitutional. If that's the case, I don't see why they didn't say so. All they've done is delay the inevitable.

if you are referring to me quoting Roberts' opinion, then i have to clarify this again. Here is the quote:

"The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency fol-lowed in doing so."

All parties agree that DHS may rescind DACA. Nothing is said about constitutionality of DACA.

 

[easyt65]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

 

[easyt65]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

They will choose to side against Trump on the next one too. He needs to try though.

BTW, the 3 branches are SUPPOSED TO BE CO-EQUAL. Why are we allowing the SC this much power?

I see it as appropriately checking the power of the Executive. The way the system was meant to work.

No, they are deciding a far leftists EO are not allowed to be nullified. They dont have that power. These are CO-EQUAL BRANCHES. Antvthe president DOES NOT have to abide by their decrees

They are co-equal so that they can check each other's power. It is working the way it was meant to work. The problem here is Congress refusing for decades to tackle real immigration reform.

The problem HERE is that Congress never authored and passed a DACA bill into law.

Barry got frustrated that Congress refused for decades to pass such legislation....so frustrated that after declaring he had no Constitutional authority to do so that he put on his 'crown' and imposed his own 'edict', declaring DACA was 'now' 'LAW'.

Can anyone give me the bill number for the DACA bill Congress wrote and voted to pass AND a link to the story where CONGRESS passed DACA?

No, you can't because it didn't happen!

 

[easyt65]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

Thank you for admitting DACA is NOT LAW.

Roberts acted to uphold an EXECUTIVE ORDER...and like all Executive Order, future Executives can rescind a previous order.

The Constitution also makes it clear that a President can not create / affect US Immigration law as Barry did with an Executive Order.

What Barry did was ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and wrote his own law...

...and Roberts just defended his doing so, setting the precedence for TRUMP and other future Presidents to be able to do the same thing.

.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

Thank you for admitting DACA is NOT LAW.

Roberts acted to uphold an EXECUTIVE ORDER...and like all Executive Order, future Executives can rescind a previous order.

The Constitution also makes it clear that a President can not create / affect US Immigration law as Barry did with an Executive Order.

What Barry did was ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and wrote his own law...

...and Roberts just defended his doing so, setting the precedence for TRUMP and other future Presidents to be able to do the same thing.

.

I addressed this already. What he did was simply say he wasn't going to enforce immigration law on a subset of illegal immigrants. He simply wrote down what others have been doing for years.

No one is going to enforce anything against them. We rely on illegal immigrants. The entire thing is nothing more than a political game to keep people divided.

 

[easyt65]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

Thank you for admitting DACA is NOT LAW.

Roberts acted to uphold an EXECUTIVE ORDER...and like all Executive Order, future Executives can rescind a previous order.

The Constitution also makes it clear that a President can not create / affect US Immigration law as Barry did with an Executive Order.

What Barry did was ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and wrote his own law...

...and Roberts just defended his doing so, setting the precedence for TRUMP and other future Presidents to be able to do the same thing.

.

I addressed this already. What he did was simply say he wasn't going to enforce immigration law on a subset of illegal immigrants. He simply wrote down what others have been doing for years.

No one is going to enforce anything against them. We rely on illegal immigrants. The entire thing is nothing more than a political game to keep people divided.

So what Obama did was use Executive Order to make what had been intentionally done illegally, Un-Constitutionally for years the 'law of the land' while acknowledging publicly his EO wasn't worth the paper it was written on because he did not have the Constitutional power / authority to do so legally.

...and again, Roberts just set the precedence that TRUMP and other future Presidents can do the same thing.

I wish I knew what the Democrats had on Roberts to blackmail the shit out of him to side with / make such Un-Constitutional decisions...


.

 

[wamose]

GWB didn't do much of anything right so why would anyone be surprised that he nominated such a disastrous neocon for the SC. Roberts is a disgrace to our judicial system. I bet he's a favorite of the Koch family.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

Thank you for admitting DACA is NOT LAW.

Roberts acted to uphold an EXECUTIVE ORDER...and like all Executive Order, future Executives can rescind a previous order.

The Constitution also makes it clear that a President can not create / affect US Immigration law as Barry did with an Executive Order.

What Barry did was ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and wrote his own law...

...and Roberts just defended his doing so, setting the precedence for TRUMP and other future Presidents to be able to do the same thing.

.

I addressed this already. What he did was simply say he wasn't going to enforce immigration law on a subset of illegal immigrants. He simply wrote down what others have been doing for years.

No one is going to enforce anything against them. We rely on illegal immigrants. The entire thing is nothing more than a political game to keep people divided.

So what Obama did was use Executive Order to make what had been intentionally done illegally, Un-Constitutionally for years the 'law of the land' while acknowledging publicly his EO wasn't worth the paper it was written on because he did not have the Constitutional power / authority to do so legally.

...and again, Roberts just set the precedence that TRUMP and other future Presidents can do the same thing.

I wish I knew what the Democrats had on Roberts to blackmail the shit out of him to side with / make such Un-Constitutional decisions...


.

I'm not going to do this over and over. There is nothing illegal about deciding to not enforce a law. It's done all the time. Do people get pulled over for doing 39 in a 35 mph zone?

Trump is doing the very same thing.

 

[Picaro]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

 

[Picaro]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

Thank you for admitting DACA is NOT LAW.

Roberts acted to uphold an EXECUTIVE ORDER...and like all Executive Order, future Executives can rescind a previous order.

The Constitution also makes it clear that a President can not create / affect US Immigration law as Barry did with an Executive Order.

What Barry did was ignore the Constitution, bypass Congress, and wrote his own law...

...and Roberts just defended his doing so, setting the precedence for TRUMP and other future Presidents to be able to do the same thing.

.

I addressed this already. What he did was simply say he wasn't going to enforce immigration law on a subset of illegal immigrants. He simply wrote down what others have been doing for years.

No one is going to enforce anything against them. We rely on illegal immigrants. The entire thing is nothing more than a political game to keep people divided.

So what Obama did was use Executive Order to make what had been intentionally done illegally, Un-Constitutionally for years the 'law of the land' while acknowledging publicly his EO wasn't worth the paper it was written on because he did not have the Constitutional power / authority to do so legally.

...and again, Roberts just set the precedence that TRUMP and other future Presidents can do the same thing.

I wish I knew what the Democrats had on Roberts to blackmail the shit out of him to side with / make such Un-Constitutional decisions...


.

It's no big mystery. The GOP and the American Chamber Of Commerce love criminal illegal aliens as much as Democrats do. Roberts is merely voting the Party's interests. They do not like or support Trump, nor do they like white American patriots who interfere with 'Globalism' and the assorted subsidies and Red Chinese labor practices being implemented here, now that the big corps have decided China is no longer a 'business friendly' police state to make big bucks in.

There is only one large demographic left in the U.S. that opposes their agenda, working class white people. LAtinos don't care, blacks don't care, upper class whites certainly don't like 'nationalists' or anyone else putting dents in their 'investment portfolios', Asian immigrants are here to speed up the process, they relish the change, it will be just like home to them, Indians are only here for the bucks, Africans aren't here because they 'love freedom n stuff', they're here for the bucks and welfare bennies.

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

 

[Flash]

 

[Picaro]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

How can someone incorrectly go about ending an In-Constitutional Law that was created by a self-professed 'Constitutional scholar' declaring he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law by-passing Congress - the only ones Constitutionally allied to write / pass laws - to impose a personal edict as law?

How can you improperly expunge a NON-law?

Roberts just ruled that an Un-Constitutional law Un-Constitutionally created can remain a law until it is 'properly' rescinded...

WTF?!

Great news - Roberts just set the precedence for the Executive Branch (Presidents) to by-pass Congress and impose their own laws through personal edict / Executive Order.


.

I asked earlier who was it that ruled it unconstitutional. I never got an answer. It was said Obama said it was but he didn't.

Can you answer?

It WAS Obama. I have posted the link many times. For once the food is - who violated the Constitution on several occasions was right.

The Constitution's Separation of Powers clearly states it is CONGRESS and ONLY Congress that authors legislation and votes bills into the law.

Laws are not created by issuing Executive Orders, by-passing Congress altogether.

Roberts is not f*ing blind or stupid to this.

DACA was, therefore, never a Constitutional law.

Since DACA was an Executive Order any President after 'Ears' has the authority to rescind the order through on of their own.

Again, the precedence Roberts just set was to allow US Presidents to bypass Congress to create their own laws through Executive Order ... Changing the Constitution himself.


.

No one claims it is a law. It's an Executive Order. I dislike them but they are legal.

The funding is not. Neither is the coercion that local school districts comply with with it.

Local schools play no role. State and local systems play no role in immigration.

Yes, they do; where else do 'Dreamers' get educated, get jobs, etc? Illegal immigration affects all education systems and school districts in the U.S. State Colleges and universities are especially affected by DACA. It's another encouragement to break our laws and break our education budgets.

 

[Flash]

 

[martybegan]

Because he probably was told it would be a slam dunk.

Ah, so the conman got conned again.

you should know about being conned, you SJW hack.

Oh boy, it's Marty's Tantrum Time again. Insult Dear Leader, and the kitty claws come out. Meow.

My ire is reserved for no talent ass clowns like you.

 

[martybegan]

Because he probably was told it would be a slam dunk.

Ah, so the conman got conned again.

you should know about being conned, you SJW hack.

Your bitterness brings me much joy. More please

Look at this circle jerk.