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.

[dfwgator]

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.

Dumbya sold us down the river.

[catfish1957]

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.

Someone needs to do an analysis of Robert's voting patterns when it comes to close votes.  I seem to see a trend, and not afraid to accuse him of being blackmailed for ...  well I won't impose that innuendo, but you get the picture. 

[skeeter]

Someone needs to do an analysis of Robert's voting patterns when it comes to close votes.  I seem to see a trend, and not afraid to accuse him of being blackmailed for ...  well I won't impose that innuendo, but you get the picture.

True he always seems to side with the left on the big rulings. We get tossed the crumbs so he can maintain some credibility.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think Roberts attended too many DC cocktail parties, he's now one of them...

[Jazzhead]

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.

I hope he does.   The problem with rescinding an EO of this kind is that thousands have changed their position as the result of the EO.   All that have come forward have exposed their illegal status but for the EO's protection.

It is hardly a radical notion to require that, when a law changes,  you don't leave high and dry those who relied (in good faith) on the prior law to order their lives.

[roamer_1]

I hope he does.   The problem with rescinding an EO of this kind is that thousands have changed their position as the result of the EO.   All that have come forward have exposed their illegal status but for the EO's protection.

It is hardly a radical notion to require that, when a law changes,  you don't leave high and dry those who relied (in good faith) on the prior law to order their lives.

Why? There is no such consideration for others, like Christian bakers.

[Applewood]

Dumbya sold us down the river.

We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it.  We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative.    Learned the hard way it ain't so.

[Jazzhead]

We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it.  We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative.    Learned the hard way it ain't so.

Why does Roberts' recognition that abolishing DACA will jeopardize the expectations of those who came forward in good faith reliance,  and place them at renewed legal risk,  mean that he is not a "constitutional conservative"?

To me,  recognizing the principle of detrimental reliance is inherently conservative,  as a protection of the innocent from the arbitrary power of government.

Or isn't that important to you?

[EdinVA]

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court over their DACA decision, calling it "gamesmanship."

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[skeeter]

Why does Roberts' recognition that abolishing DACA will jeopardize the expectations of those who came forward in good faith reliance,  and place them at renewed legal risk,  mean that he is not a "constitutional conservative"?

To me,  recognizing the principle of detrimental reliance is inherently conservative,  as a protection of the innocent from the arbitrary power of government.

Or isn't that important to you?

Maybe I’m mistaken but didn’t Trump simply say he wasn’t renewing what was likely an unconstitutional executive order in the first place, and SCOTUS is telling him, essentially, he lacks the authority to even do that much?

[roamer_1]

We were gullible, naïve, whatever you want to call it.  We thought a Republican jurist would be a constitutional conservative.    Learned the hard way it ain't so.

WERE? Many still ARE.

[Applewood]

WERE? Many still ARE.

Yep.  And I can think of a former Democrat who registered as a Republican to run in 2016 and I was told he had "evolved."

[Applewood]

@EdinVA

Thanks for that clip.  But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard.  He looks like a homeless person.  Ick!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Dumbya sold us down the river.

Think if you will, back to 2006, now I don't remember John Robert's appointment perfectly, but I do remember it, and IIRC any criticism of Bush was due to "Bush Derangement syndrome" and we were a part of Code Pink to question Bush in any way. This was prior to his signing/support of the amnesty bill, before conservatives broke with him in mass.

[EdinVA]

@EdinVA

Thanks for that clip.  But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard.  He looks like a homeless person.  Ick!

[roamer_1]

Yep.  And I can think of a former Democrat who registered as a Republican to run in 2016 and I was told he had "evolved."

Yeah... sure he did. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think he looks better with the beard.

[roamer_1]

@EdinVA

Thanks for that clip.  But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard.  He looks like a homeless person.  Ick!

I looked at it with a jaundiced eye too - as being too quaffed.

Mine is almost down to my third button, and my tail is two fists long...   

Soon enough it will be too hot and it will all come off... And folks would criticize the onion-head instead. No accounting for it. 

[Applewood]

I looked at it with a jaundiced eye too - as being too quaffed.

Mine is almost down to my third button, and my tail is two fists long...   

Soon enough it will be too hot and it will all come off... And folks would criticize the onion-head instead. No accounting for it. 

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Ted's beard and I've probably insulted every man on this forum who sports a beard.  I'm sorry, but I just don't like beards.  Perhaps you can wear a beard well -- some men can -- but most of the ones I've seen who sport a beard look terrible. 

My brother, for instance.  He grows a beard starting every fall.  He is a skier and he says the extra fur protects his face from the elements when he's on the slopes.  Ok, I'll buy that.  Only...my brother's beard is never even.  One side of his face might have a full beard, but the other side is sparse and straggly.  He could, I suppose, even out both sides. but he doesn't.  And he too looks like a homeless person.  Right now he's clean shaven for summer and his wife is a happy camper -- she doesn't like his beard either.  But in a few months, he will look like a homeless person again.  Ugh!

That all said -- and getting back to the original topic -- bravo to Ted.  His speech was spot on.

[roamer_1]

I'm apparently in the minority when it comes to Ted's beard and I've probably insulted every man on this forum who sports a beard.  I'm sorry, but I just don't like beards.  Perhaps you can wear a beard well -- some men can -- but most of the ones I've seen who sport a beard look terrible.

It is a cultural thing... Many folks are not into a natural man.
I catch a lot of heck in the cowboy community. Cowboys as a rule remain clean shaven... But they tolerate my hillbilly tendencies. There is great equanimity between cowboys, farmers and hill folk. Women though, not so much. Cowgirls demand a clean-shaven man, for the most part.  So I tend toward HillJillys, who prefer their men entirely natural. The last gal I was with mourned my absent fur in the summer, and could not wait for my hair to grow back. I tried to keep it on for her, but nope. She was overjoyed when it got long enough I could put my throat patch back on (Native decoration she made for me - Looks dumb without the hair)

No, really. 

My brother, for instance.  He grows a beard starting every fall.  He is a skier and he says the extra fur protects his face from the elements when he's on the slopes.  Ok, I'll buy that. 

Good. Because it is absolutely true.

Only...my brother's beard is never even.  One side of his face might have a full beard, but the other side is sparse and straggly.  He could, I suppose, even out both sides. but he doesn't.  And he too looks like a homeless person.

I have a similar problem - the right side of my face having been subjected to road rash... It eventually catches up, but it is more sparse in the growing of it till it gets full.

That all said -- and getting back to the original topic -- bravo to Ted.  His speech was spot on.

That's right.

[skeeter]

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sen. Ted Cruz slammed Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court over their DACA decision, calling it "gamesmanship."

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

This is the Cruz I remember. Teds calling Roberts out as a fraud and he’s right.

[Jazzhead]

Maybe I’m mistaken but didn’t Trump simply say he wasn’t renewing what was likely an unconstitutional executive order in the first place, and SCOTUS is telling him, essentially, he lacks the authority to even do that much?

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

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.

[corbe]

   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.

[libertybele]

@EdinVA

Thanks for that clip.  But someone please advise Ted to shave that beard.  He looks like a homeless person.  Ick!

I disagree.  I love Ted's beard!!!