More good news: DACA has been upheld

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Thanks Bush for what's his face.

[skeeter]

This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.

Clownworld.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.

Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.

[Applewood]

Supreme Court blocks Trump plan to end DACA program

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to block the Trump administration from ending an Obama-era program that shields nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation, upending a key feature of President Trump’s immigration agenda.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said the administration failed to give an adequate justification for terminating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, as required by federal law.

https://thehill.com/regulation/503356-supreme-court-blocks-trump-plan-to-end-daca-program

[skeeter]

Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.

Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.

Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program
Fox News, Jun 18, 2020

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

The court ruled that the administration's decision to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members to author the opinion, the court said the move to eliminate the program that grants privileges to children who entered the U.S. illegally as minors was "arbitrary and capricious," although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."

Roberts wrote that the administration "failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance," as well as the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program.

"That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner," Roberts wrote. "The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew."

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissent, saying: "These cases could—and should—have ended with a determination that his legal conclusion was correct. Instead, the majority today concludes that DHS was required to do far more."

He continued: "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. This holding is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority. I would therefore reverse the judgments below and remand with instructions to dissolve the nationwide injunctions.”

More:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program

What a convoluted decision.  Makes me wonder if the President will take another crack at this in his second term. 

[Applewood]

Clearly, we need to keep the WH and the Senate to overcome the current liberal majority.

Tell me again what was so attractive about Roberts, please.

All I know so far is that Roberts wrote the majority opinion.  I will be curious to see how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted.  If they sided with the majority, I would put the blame on them too.

Roberts was sold as a conservative jurist, but he was merely a registered Republican.  As we all know now, being a Republican does not mean being conservative.    The party is infested with flaming liberals and has been for many years.  We just didn't know it till recently.

[Edited to add]  Ok, I posted before I read the article you posted above.  So it looks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined with Alito and Thomas in the minority.  Good.  Just too bad they were outnumbered by Roberts and the rest of the libs.

[skeeter]

What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?

[Right_in_Virginia]

All I know so far is that Roberts wrote the majority opinion.  I will be curious to see how Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted.  If they sided with the majority, I would put the blame on them too.

It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood  Roberts broke with the "conservatives".

[mystery-ak]

Schumer says he cried 'tears of joy' over DACA decision
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503366-schumer-says-he-cried-tears-of-joy-over-daca-decision

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What a convoluted decision.  Makes me wonder if the President will take another crack at this in his second term.

So Trump merely has to provide a reason to shut down the program beforehand? He should just do that.

[Applewood]

It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood  Roberts broke with the "conservatives".

Thanks @Right_in_Virginia

I wouldn't say Roberts "broke" with the conservatives since he has been on the liberal side since the beginning.  Like I said, Roberts might have been a Republican, but he sure as hell isn't conservative.

[skeeter]

Schumer says he cried 'tears of joy' over DACA decision
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/503366-schumer-says-he-cried-tears-of-joy-over-daca-decision

Sounds unstable. He should resign immediately and seek professional help.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood  Roberts broke with the "conservatives".

[Bigun]

This is a disaster. Can't wait to hear how Trump's EO is no bueno while Obama's EO is ok.

This is an atrocity of the first order with zero constitutional underpinnings!

[Right_in_Virginia]

So Trump merely has to provide a reason to shut down the program beforehand? He should just do that.

Trump's not going to do it now ... but he will try again Jan 20, 2021.  I'd like him to just override Obama's EO.

But whatever, I'm sure he's taking another crack at this.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?

It's convoluted for sure @skeeter   But then this is from the mind that turned an individual mandate into a tax.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Thanks @Right_in_Virginia

I wouldn't say Roberts "broke" with the conservatives ....

Good point @Applewood   

[catfish1957]

Roberts is worse the RBG, who never pretended to be anything other than a left wing ideologue.

Roberts and Bolton are doing their best knifing conservatives in the back routine.  Those two guys are probably having a celebratory circle jerk.

[mystery-ak]

‘Wow’: Democrats celebrate high court ruling protecting 'Dreamers'
by Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent |
 | June 18, 2020 11:36 AM


Democrats celebrated a Thursday Supreme Court ruling protecting “Dreamers” from deportation with “tears of joy” and “a sigh of relief” and said the court was delivering surprising rulings they were happy to support.

“I cried tears of joy a few minutes ago when I heard the decision of the Supreme Court on DACA,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a Senate floor speech.

Schumer said the court “provided a bright ray of sunshine this week” with its decisions.

In addition to upholding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Supreme Court ruled federal law protected LGBTQ workers from discrimination.

“Who would have thought it would have had so many good decisions in one week?” Schumer said. “Who would have thought. Wow.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said polls showed the vast majority of people supported legalizing Dreamers.

"The DACA decision is something that supports our values as a country," said Pelosi, a California Democrat. "We were in such dread about what could possibly happen in the court. But this way is the American way. And we are very proud of it."

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/wow-democrats-celebrate-high-court-ruling-protecting-dreamers

[Bigun]

What in the hell is Roberts talking about? Is he saying he didn't like the reason the agency gave for ending the program? Isn't this a rather subjective ruling for a court that is supposed to objectively compare law to the Constitution?

From The Thomas dissent:

DACA alters how the immigration laws apply to a certain class of aliens. “DACA [recipients] primarily entered the
country either by overstaying a visa or by entering without inspection, and the INA instructs that aliens in both classes
are removable.” Texas v. United States, 328 F. Supp. 3d
662, 713 (SD Tex. 2018) (footnote omitted).

But DACA granted its recipients deferred action, i.e., a decision to “decline to institute [removal] proceedings, terminate [removal] proceedings, or decline to institute a final order of [removal].” Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Comm., 525 U. S. 471, 484 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under other regulations, recipients of deferred
action are deemed lawfully present for purposes of certain federal benefits. See supra, at 4. Thus, DACA in effect created a new exception to the statutory provisions governing removability and, in the process, conferred lawful presence on an entire class of aliens. To lawfully implement such changes, DHS needed a grant of authority from Congress to either reclassify removable DACA recipients as lawfully present, or to exempt the entire class of aliens covered by DACA from statutory removal procedures. No party disputes that the immigration statutes lack an express delegation to accomplish either result. And, an examination of the highly reticulated immigration regime makes clear that DHS has no implicit discretion to create new classes of lawful presence or to grant
relief from removal out of whole cloth. Accordingly, DACA is substantively unlawful.


This conclusion should begin and end our review. The decision to rescind an unlawful agency action is per se lawful. No additional policy justifications or considerations are necessary. And, the majority’s contrary holding—that an
the agency is not only permitted but required, to continue an ultra vires action—has no basis in law.

HE is exactly right!

[skeeter]

Roberts and Bolton are doing their best knifing conservatives in the back routine.  Those two guys are probably having a celebratory circle jerk.

Bolton is a simple bureaucratic hack. Worse than that, Roberts has tossed out his sworn commitment to the Constitution in favor of protecting his Deep State benefactors.

[dfwgator]

It was a 5-4 decision @Applewood  Roberts broke with the "conservatives".

Yep, he's a fag.

[skeeter]

From The Thomas dissent:

HE is exactly right!

He is. Roberts is committing Constitutional malpractice on a regular basis.