More good news: DACA has been upheld

[Jazzhead]

But if a baker doesn't bake a cake everything he has worked for all his life can be taken.
This is the crap you get with deciders deciding instead of the rule of law.

I don't see the connection.   The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc)  and chose to defy it.

The DACA enrollees chose to conform to the law, at great personal risk,  and then the rug was swept out from under them.

That is, as Roberts wrote, arbitrary and capricious.  It is not the way government is supposed to act.   To me, a Constitutional conservative is one that respects due process and the rule of law.  Roberts qualifies, IMO.

[Free Vulcan]

Yes, he can eliminate the program.  But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position.   No one likes a bait and switch,  especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.

You are carving legal justifications out of thin air.

Congress, Presidents, even the SCOTUS changes law all the time without considering the consequences of those affected.

Obamacare comes to mind.

[EdinVA]

   I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it.  DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level.  As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!

   Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.

If what you say is true, the I don't understand....  The case specifically states the case is between DHS and UC

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california/

[Sighlass]

I haven't liked a SCOTUS justice nominee since Thomas. They all have been wishy washy. Lukewarm that tends to spew to the left when pressed.

Ted's beard looks fine.

Laconic reply.

[Axeslinger]

I don't see the connection.   The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc)  and chose to defy it.

The DACA enrollees chose to conform to the law, at great personal risk,  and then the rug was swept out from under them.

That is, as Roberts wrote, arbitrary and capricious.  It is not the way government is supposed to act.   To me, a Constitutional conservative is one that respects due process and the rule of law.  Roberts qualifies, IMO.

@Jazzhead  there you go again...spouting bullshit.  And you’d been doing so well for a while. No baker in ANY of these cases denied service. PERIOD.  FULL STOP.   They only refused to make a CUSTOM wedding cake.  ANY other item was good to go.   Argue your points, but argue from facts and truth.

[roamer_1]

I don't see the connection.   The baker knew what the law was (to serve his customers without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc)  and chose to defy it.

No, that was not the law. That was a decision imposed by fiat, that months prior did not exist wrt homo marriage.

[Jazzhead]

The baker silliness is in no way similar to the legal equivalent of a bait and switch.   Roberts made clear in the opinion that the issue of reliance was unaddressed. 

What if you complied with a law requiring you to do certain things to be able to carry a firearm in public,  and then the solons abolished that law with no replacement?    Unless you're grandfathered,  you've been screwed.    The essence of conservative jurisprudence is respect for the right of the individual against the arbitrary whims of the state.   Those who registered with DACA put their necks on the line for government dispensation.   Now the government can renege on the deal?   

[skeeter]

Yes, he can eliminate the program.  But he has to address the situations of those who relied on DACA to change their legal position.   No one likes a bait and switch,  especially when the potential consequence is loss of job and deportation.

The original EO was illegal. And it was never sold as anything other than a temporary program.

[skeeter]

   I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it.  DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level.  As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!

   Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.

Did you watch Cruz's speech? It has nothing to do with what Trump's lawyers did. Roberts is playing a game here he has played before.

[corbe]

Did you watch Cruz's speech?

   I watched it after I posted that @skeeter I've missed him.  He and I agree that Roberts has been playing 'Gamemanship' and all his examples of this I think further illustrates my point that, again, the Trump Administration was inadequately prepared to see this through, but it could just be my TDS.

[skeeter]

   I watched it after I posted that @skeeter I've missed him.  He and I agree that Roberts has been playing 'Gamemanship' and all his examples of this I think further illustrates my point that, again, the Trump Administration was inadequately prepared to see this through, but it could just be my TDS.

I suspect that by this time Trump has a pretty competent team of legal minds developing these arguments. Especially after this same gag has been pulled on them several times already. Its a little too pat - 'sure you have the legal authority to do what you are arguing here, but on article 5 sub-article 5.4 you mispelled indemnity.' Tomorrow's story becomes 'Trump f&^$ed up again'. Heard it before, not buying.

[Applewood]

   I dislike Roberts with the rest of ya, but his decision says there’s no question President Trump has the power to end DACA but the issue was how he did it.  DACA was not an obummr EO, it was written at the DHS, Cabinet Level.  As usual the Trump Administration f*ced this up but let's hate on Robert's instead, he's an azzhole!

   Trump will try again, after the election, and I suspect he won't screw it up this time.

Ideally, this should have been dealt with by congress with the president's influence when Republicans held the majority in both houses of congress plus the presidency.  But as with everything else they promised -- they did nothing. 

Trump could write another EO, but given his track record with those, I don't have much confidence he will succeed next time.  And with the house in Dem hands and the possibility the Republicans will lose control of the senate -- well, I think we can forget about any effort to fix our illegal immigration mess -- DACA included. 

Let's face it -- the Republican Party had their chance.  They blew it.  The Dems will get to keep all these new voters and will rule this country for generations.

[catfish1957]

I suspect that by this time Trump has a pretty competent team of legal minds developing these arguments. Especially after this same gag has been pulled on them several times already. Its a little too pat - 'sure you have the legal authority to do what you are arguing here, but on article 5 sub-article 5.4 you mispelled indemnity.' Tomorrow's story becomes 'Trump f&^$ed up again'. Heard it before, not buying.

Another thing I am noticing.  Seems since we lost Scalia, we have lost a forceful conservative advocate on the court.  Decisons have tended more left than needed since.

[corbe]

   Thomas wrote a hell of a dissention today.

[skeeter]

Another thing I am noticing.  Seems since we lost Scalia, we have lost a forceful conservative advocate on the court.  Decisons have tended more left than needed since.

Thomas would be the guy to step into Scalia’s shoes - he’s got it down & is a damn good jurist. I wish he were more of a leader.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Thomas would be the guy to step into Scalia’s shoes - he’s got it down & is a damn good jurist. I wish he were more of a leader.

No... Justices are not leaders, they're supposed to debate and rule on the merits of the case only.

[skeeter]

No... Justices are not leaders, they're supposed to debate and rule on the merits of the case only.

Yes, but every group has those who stand out. Scalia took the lead on SCOTUS and gave the impression of being an influence on the others.

[Smokin Joe]

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

We have a rogue court, a traitorous House, and executive agencies full of turncoats and seditionists.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

[dancer]

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

And he'll be on the bench for decades to come.  I fully support PDJT" call for more Justices.  There is no other option. 

[sneakypete]

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

@skeeter

I tried to warn people that he was a part of the "Homo Mafia" in DC and that's why Boy Jorge nominated him,but back then everybody was still pretending that Boy Jorge was a conservative.

[sneakypete]

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

@mystery-ak

Of course he did. He and all the other Dims need the illegal alien vote to stay in power and to keep the money flowing into their foreign bank accounts.

[AL]

Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way.  It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of.  Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.

[Slide Rule]

Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way.  It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of.  Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.

I have outlived most of my friends. Dad was the same. It is the Neanderthal DNA. I am sturdily built with especially strong legs and large head. I always thought for enhanced thinking. Well sometimes I have enhanced thinking. It would seem that Roberts has defective genes I surmise not a singular Neanderthal gene to be found, that defect could lead to self removal.

It is a natural process with the choices from those defects that become quickly apparent, reminding us all to select better stock for president. That is, no more presidential Rinos or any Rinos.

We have suffered long with Supreme Ginsburg, who appears to be slowly giving it up. Maybe November will be a trifecta.

[Jazzhead]

Judges from the Supreme Court down through all of the US District Courts are making politicized judgements amounting to legislation their way.  It's not in their pay grade to do what congress should be taking care of.  Roberts decided he would tax US citizens for health care, that was not the courts responsibility, now he doesn't care for the wording of an EO and again he is politicizing a President's decision.

He's "politicizing" nothing.   He told the Administration to reform the order to address what's wrong with it.   The Administration is proceeding to do so.     That's the system (and yes, justice) working,  protecting both the President's right to unwind a previous President's EO, as well as the interests of those who are, legally speaking, stuck way out on a limb.   

Granted, every other damn fool under the sun is politicizing it. 

[Smokin Joe]

He's "politicizing" nothing.   He told the Administration to reform the order to address what's wrong with it.   The Administration is proceeding to do so.     That's the system (and yes, justice) working,  protecting both the President's right to unwind a previous President's EO, as well as the interests of those who are, legally speaking, stuck way out on a limb.   

Granted, every other damn fool under the sun is politicizing it.

Roberts spelled "penalty" T A X and upheld one of the most disastrous crap bits of legislation, ever, costing millions of Americans any health insurancethey had.

Recently he rewrote "sex" (as used, the obvious original intent of the legislation being a "binary" biological determination of male versus female) into an act, a preference, an "identification", a practice, in order to encompass the right of perverts and sick people to a job anywhere.

Someone has some career ending dirt on him, and something that could possible put him in prison, and they are pulling his strings. Either that or anything conservative he ever did was just an act.