Another great decision by Justice John Roberts !!! It's decisions like this that makes us extremely proud to be Americans !!
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration Thursday from ending a popular program that allows nearly 700,000 young, undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States without fear of deportation.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...458220002/
Roberts has been deeply disappointing.
Did you cry tears of joy like Chuck Schumer did?
I agree with the decision. Turning people out of, for many, the only home they’ve ever known is inhumane. For all intents and purposes they’re already U.S. citizens. They should not be punished for the actions of their parents.
(06-18-2020, 10:56 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Did you cry tears of joy like Chuck Schumer did?
He’s such a snake. He really is.
Without congressional approval the previous POTUS wrote a decree and the Supremes made it a law. Not the first time the Supremes have bypassed congress to create their own law. This is a major part of what's wrong with the government.
I wouldn't call Roberts the next John Paul Stevens by any means, but he's slowly morphed into maybe the first true centrist justice the SCOTUS has had in a long time.
(06-18-2020, 11:08 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Without congressional approval the previous POTUS wrote a decree and the Supremes made it a law. Not the first time the Supremes have bypassed congress to create their own law. This is a major part of what's wrong with the government.
You should really read the decision.
Roberts is saying DACA and DAPA consist of two things.
"Forbearance" - we won't deport you
"Affirmation" - here is a social security number and work authorization.
Roberts and the judges at the appellate level all took issue with the fact that the administration tried to end both parts of the policy, even though they only offered rationale for ending the affirmative part of the policy.
He's saying they needed to explain both, or else only end the one that they can explain.
(06-18-2020, 10:40 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Roberts has been deeply disappointing.
Not to Bush
(06-18-2020, 11:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-18-2020, 11:08 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Without congressional approval the previous POTUS wrote a decree and the Supremes made it a law. Not the first time the Supremes have bypassed congress to create their own law. This is a major part of what's wrong with the government.
You should really read the decision.
Roberts is saying DACA and DAPA consist of two things.
"Forbearance" - we won't deport you
"Affirmation" - here is a social security number and work authorization.
Roberts and the judges at the appellate level all took issue with the fact that the administration tried to end both parts of the policy, even though they only offered rationale for ending the affirmative part of the policy.
He's saying they needed to explain both, or else only end the one that they can explain.
DACA was a policy decision made by Obama without congressional approval. It should not require any reason from a future POTUS to end that policy. Otherwise a POTUS has the ability to create law. Saying that Trump didn't jump through enough hoops to change a law created by dictatorial fiat makes the ability to create law without Congress approving a matter of the SCOTUS deciding how many hoops are required (and they could decide the number is infinite).
It's hard to turn away kids that have only ever known the US, but I'll never understand how the sitting President doesn't have the authority to overturn something done by the previous President just because they don't like his reasoning.
The court basically allowed Obama to implement his own law absent Congress.
(06-18-2020, 02:03 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (06-18-2020, 11:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You should really read the decision.
Roberts is saying DACA and DAPA consist of two things.
"Forbearance" - we won't deport you
"Affirmation" - here is a social security number and work authorization.
Roberts and the judges at the appellate level all took issue with the fact that the administration tried to end both parts of the policy, even though they only offered rationale for ending the affirmative part of the policy.
He's saying they needed to explain both, or else only end the one that they can explain.
DACA was a policy decision made by Obama without congressional approval. It should not require any reason from a future POTUS to end that policy. Otherwise a POTUS has the ability to create law. Saying that Trump didn't jump through enough hoops to change a law created by dictatorial fiat makes the ability to create law without Congress approving a matter of the SCOTUS deciding how many hoops are required (and they could decide the number is infinite).
You should read a synopsis of the Administrative Procedures Act.
And before you say it's unfair, remember, in 2017 Republicans were able to use that act to end a few administrative procedures of Obama's that the clock was still ticking on. One was the Clean Power Plan. They weren't able to end DACA the same way because it had been enacted for too long.
(06-18-2020, 12:53 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-18-2020, 10:40 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Roberts has been deeply disappointing.
Not to Bush
True. Is this payback for Trump attacking the Bush family during the 2016 campaign ??
(06-18-2020, 03:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to turn away kids that have only ever known the US, but I'll never understand how the sitting President doesn't have the authority to overturn something done by the previous President just because they don't like his reasoning.
The court basically allowed Obama to implement his own law absent Congress.
My fear is that a precedence has been set to overturn the opposing party's presidential decisions, that it's going to be continuous from here on in. I mean, could Biden potentially rip up Trump's deals? Yes, perhaps so. Then Romney will rip up Trumps deals. Then AOC will rip up Romney's deals.
(06-18-2020, 04:14 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ] (06-18-2020, 12:53 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Not to Bush
True. Is this payback for Trump attacking the Bush family during the 2016 campaign ??
(06-18-2020, 03:02 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to turn away kids that have only ever known the US, but I'll never understand how the sitting President doesn't have the authority to overturn something done by the previous President just because they don't like his reasoning.
The court basically allowed Obama to implement his own law absent Congress.
My fear is that a precedence has been set to overturn the opposing party's presidential decisions, that it's going to be continuous from here on in. I mean, could Biden potentially rip up Trump's deals? Yes, perhaps so. Then Romney will rip up Trumps deals. Then AOC will rip up Romney's deals.
Alito is also a Bush appointee, so no, something else is going on.
But yeah we should all be very concerned at the prospect of having to renegotiate every single international and administrative understanding every four years..