DACA Upheld by Supreme Court

[Billiejeens]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Translation - Because no one ever told him no, and the media covered his ass -
He decided that he would try that "king" thing after all.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama's EO said to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

i guess that they didn't get to the heart of it, because the dispute before the court was not about the heart of it.

"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."

Okay, but don't you think at SOME point the SCOTUS should put a stop to this nonsense? And this isn't partisan, both sides like to play the game of running to court over stupid technicality because they disagree with what something the other side has done, not bothering to claim that they can't do what they did, but simply arguing some technicality in an attempt to stop it.

That's bullshit and a complete waste of everyone's time, and I'm sick of it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama's EO said to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

i guess that they didn't get to the heart of it, because the dispute before the court was not about the heart of it.

"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."

Okay, but don't you think at SOME point the SCOTUS should put a stop to this nonsense? And this isn't partisan, both sides like to play the game of running to court over stupid technicality because they disagree with what something the other side has done, not bothering to claim that they can't do what they did, but simply arguing some technicality in an attempt to stop it.

That's bullshit and a complete waste of everyone's time, and I'm sick of it.

i don't know if SCOTUS could simply put a stop to whatever nonsense. it is my impression that they can decide to hear a case or not, but that they cannot change the questions posed in the case. judicial review, not putting stop to nonsense. but who knows, i am certainly no expert in SCOTUS.

 

[OldLady]

This could have gone either way and indeed DACA could and probably will fall at sometime in the future, just not the way trump wanted to kill it, due to the poor work of administration lawyers and trump in they way they wrote and defended their rescission of DACA. But, as I said it really could have gone either way. Could it be, the stinging losses for the trump administration, the last few days are the result of attitudes being generated in the court by trump himself and his antics, statement and style of leadership over the last few months? Kind of like if the Republican Senate is not going to exercise any oversite or control on this moron, we'll remind him he doesn't get to rule by fiat, roughshod over America? Roberts made it clear, DACA is not approved, but the administration must get it's shit together and do the job right or STFU.

It is exactly what the checks and balances system of our three branch government was meant for. They knew a maroon like Trump would end up in the WH one day.

I was surprised to learn from Politifact (link in earlier post) that Obama did NOT issue an EO. DHS made the changes in policy themselves, and it is up to them to clean up their excuse for rescinding it. SC is giving them a chance. Then we'll see how long it takes the SC to take it up again.

I agree with President Trump that this should have been dealt with via legislation long ago, but there seems to be no will in Congress to do so and hasn't been for a long time--which is why Obama ended up doing what he did when Congress wouldn't pass his proposed immigration legislation. However, rather than taking the positive, leadership approach of pushing and working with Congress to pass a law that would satisfy most, instead Trump tried to dump it in the wastebasket and said to hell with those DACA folks. I don't agree with that at all.

 

[task0778]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

You don't think the fact that the EO is unconstitutional is a good reason?

Its a moot point to them.

It's a moot point to SOME of them. It wasn't moot to the 4 conservative justices that voted the other way. I think OL is right, they sidestepped that issue of constitutionality, maybe to avoid legislating from the bench but in fact they allowed President Obama to legislate from the Oval Office. Like "It's wrong, but we didn't do it".

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama's EO said to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

i guess that they didn't get to the heart of it, because the dispute before the court was not about the heart of it.

"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."

Okay, but don't you think at SOME point the SCOTUS should put a stop to this nonsense? And this isn't partisan, both sides like to play the game of running to court over stupid technicality because they disagree with what something the other side has done, not bothering to claim that they can't do what they did, but simply arguing some technicality in an attempt to stop it.

That's bullshit and a complete waste of everyone's time, and I'm sick of it.

i don't know if SCOTUS could simply put a stop to whatever nonsense. it is my impression that they can decide to hear a case or not, but that they cannot change the questions posed in the case. judicial review, not putting stop to nonsense. but who knows, i am certainly no expert in SCOTUS.

I'm not expert either, but if SCOTUS were to issue a ruling to the affect that parties may not sue the executive branch over questions of implementation, only over questions of whether an action is constitutional or not, lower courts would have to follow that ruling and simply dismiss any future stupidity.

The Courts are supposed to rule on the Constitutionality of what the government does , they don't actually have any legal basis to decide if this box was checked or that box was checked.

 

[TNHarley]

The constitution gives congress the power to grant naturalization, not the president.
The constitution also states the oresident has executive power to make sure laws are faithfully executed. Not defer them.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

This could have gone either way and indeed DACA could and probably will fall at sometime in the future, just not the way trump wanted to kill it, due to the poor work of administration lawyers and trump in they way they wrote and defended their rescission of DACA. But, as I said it really could have gone either way. Could it be, the stinging losses for the trump administration, the last few days are the result of attitudes being generated in the court by trump himself and his antics, statement and style of leadership over the last few months? Kind of like if the Republican Senate is not going to exercise any oversite or control on this moron, we'll remind him he doesn't get to rule by fiat, roughshod over America? Roberts made it clear, DACA is not approved, but the administration must get it's shit together and do the job right or STFU.

It is exactly what the checks and balances system of our three branch government was meant for. They knew a maroon like Trump would end up in the WH one day.

I was surprised to learn from Politifact (link in earlier post) that Obama did NOT issue an EO. DHS made the changes in policy themselves, and it is up to them to clean up their excuse for rescinding it. SC is giving them a chance. Then we'll see how long it takes the SC to take it up again.

I agree with President Trump that this should have been dealt with via legislation long ago, but there seems to be no will in Congress to do so and hasn't been for a long time--which is why Obama ended up doing what he did when Congress wouldn't pass his proposed immigration legislation. However, rather than taking the positive, leadership approach of pushing and working with Congress to pass a law that would satisfy most, instead Trump tried to dump it in the wastebasket and said to hell with those DACA folks. I don't agree with that at all.

That's BS, Donald Trump doesn't control what Congress does or does not do, Nancy Pelosi has made zero effort towards voting on legislation to end this situation.

And we both know why. If this situation were actually resolved what would that old hag harp about the next time she ran for reelection? Same reason Democrats don't ever actually try to resolve ANYTHING.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

The constitution gives congress the power to grant naturalization, not the president.
The constitution also states the oresident has executive power to make sure laws are faithfully executed. Not defer them.

You are wrong on this point. The President is the head of the Justice Department, he absolutely has the authority to defer prosecution .

What's odd is all the lefties who love that Obama did exactly that on MULTIPLE occasions want Trump's head because his Attorney General has done so LOL

 

[easyt65]

The self-proclaimed 'Constitutional Scholar' Barak Obama even admitted that he had no Constitutional authority to affect US Immigration Law....before he issued his own personal edict declaring his DACA 'edict' LAW.

Today Chief Justice cast the deciding swing vote not only making DACA Constitutional law, despite Congress never authoring and passing such legislation, but also setting the precedence for the Executive Branch of the United States government - Presidents - to bypass Congress to make / establish LAW through Presidential Executive Orders!

Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Trump administration’s effort to end the Obama-era program that offers legal protections to young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

www.foxnews.com

 

[TNHarley]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Yes, thats what he said. Thanks.
In 2011, he said, " with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through EO, thats just not the case" guess what he did?
Also, a presidential memorandum and EO are used interchangably. Dont even know why they bothered pointing that out. Probably hacks.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama instructed them to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com

Yes, thats what he said. Thanks.
In 2011, he said, " with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through EO, thats just not the case" guess what he did?
Also, a presidential memorandum and EO are used interchangably. Dont even know why they bothered pointing that out. Probably hacks.

On point on that one, there is no difference between a memorandum, a proclamation and a order. They are all the same thing. The President directing a federal agency to take a specific action.

 

[TNHarley]

The constitution gives congress the power to grant naturalization, not the president.
The constitution also states the oresident has executive power to make sure laws are faithfully executed. Not defer them.

You are wrong on this point. The President is the head of the Justice Department, he absolutely has the authority to defer prosecution .

What's odd is all the lefties who love that Obama did exactly that on MULTIPLE occasions want Trump's head because his Attorney General has done so LOL

to defer prosecution under the guidance of the constitution. Which he did not do.
Judge andrew hanen agrees.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Roberts has shown he is reluctant to take a stand on controversial issues in the interest of some personal vision of non-partisanship. He delays the inevitable as much as possible.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

Translation:
"Thank for allowing Mexico's trash to continuing stealing American citizenship's for their children...thank you for allowing good real Americans to continuing getting fucked."

This ladies and gentlemen, is how you got Trump shoved down your throat. Thank you for your ignorance and total disregard for the American citizenry.

 

[playtime]

 

[Norman]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

Absolutely appalling. We can not allow this in our nation.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There's just no point now in even having a Republican president, they can't seem to get it right.
Thomas and Alito are the only ones now that turned out to be the way we thought they would.
These newer guys are a complete bust.

And by the way, how is it that Roberts can agree with an illegal executive decision ?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What's even more stunning, is we literally have more than half the country that do not believe in immigration enforcement whatsoever.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Roberts comes through again.

I hope that's sarcasm.

Trump cant afford to pick another Robert's. He better pick a staunch conservative.