Supreme Court rules Trump cannot end DACA in big win for 'Dreamer' legal immigrants

El OchoCinco · Jun 19, 2020

Dr. Love said:
Carlson? What are you talking about? Oh again another TDS lefty talking out of his ass.
More...

I do not worship or praise any self indulgent talk show host who preaches hypocritical political commentary be they from CNN or FOX..... it is about self respect for not being brainwashed.

Cuddles · Jun 19, 2020

Here4money said:
#BestPeople

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l?via=taps_top
Quote:
...As Roberts explained on Thursday, however, Duke had much more discretion than her memo suggested. According to Sessions, DACA is illegal because it “has the same legal … defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA.” But the 5th Circuit found that only one half of DAPA crossed the line: its extension of government benefits. The court did not say that the other half of DAPA, deferred deportation (or “forbearance”), was illegal. Yet Duke treated both halves as an inseparable whole, never even considering the possibility of ending government benefits for Dreamers while continuing to defer their deportation.

“Removing benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance,” Roberts wrote, “remained squarely within [Duke’s] discretion.” She therefore had an obligation to explain why she rejected this option. By failing to do so, Duke acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs these executive actions.

It gets worse. Duke, the chief justice noted, never asked if there was “legitimate reliance” on DACA. When an executive agency “changes course” by changing the rules, it must ask how its new rule will affect people who relied on the old one. Here, the “reliance interests” are powerful: DACA allowed more than 700,000 people to live and work legally in the United States. As Roberts noted, the program’s recipients have “enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children.” Abruptly revoking Dreamers’ work permits could “result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years.” In light of these consequences, Duke could have “considered more accommodating termination dates for recipients caught in the middle of a time-bounded commitment, to allow them to, say, graduate from their course of study, complete their military service, or finish a medical treatment regimen.”

But Duke did no such thing. She simply ignored the weighty costs to real people and the nation at large. By doing so, Roberts held, she acted in an unlawfully arbitrary and capricious way.

After multiple court losses, the Justice Department figured out that Sessions and Duke’s scheme was legally problematic. That’s why, in 2018, it had Duke’s successor, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, issue a new memo to shore up the old one. Nielsen provided a slew of retroactive justifications for DACA repeal; she also considered, and rejected, possible reliance interests. Roberts, though, found Nielsen’s memo irrelevant. It is a “foundational principle of administrative law,” the chief justice wrote, that courts can only look at “the grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.” If Nielsen wanted to elaborate on the legal reasons for DACA repeal, she could only discuss those justifications Duke provided. Nielsen, Roberts determined, broke this rule by throwing in post-hoc rationalizations that are nowhere to be found in Duke’s memo. So the court can only look at the original memo—and that memo’s reasoning is “arbitrary and capricious.”

Roberts’ opinion is strikingly similar to his decision last year blocking the census citizenship question. In each case, the Trump administration cut corners in a mad dash to enact new policy. In each case, it provided dubious, flimsy, and outright dishonest reasons for its actions. In each case, it hoped the Supreme Court’s conservatives would disregard its ineptitude and mendacity and serve as a rubber stamp. And in each case, Roberts refused to play along, drawing a line in the sand. The chief justice is not a closet liberal, but he is a stickler for the rules. And he is not willing to let Trump bend those rules without, at a minimum, a more plausible pretext.

Thursday’s decision is narrow. It allows the Trump administration to attempt a do-over, to start from the beginning and repeal DACA legally. It rejects the plaintiffs’ claim that the administration acted out of racist animus in violation of equal protection. (Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor would’ve preserved those claims.) All four dissenters—Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—treat the decision as an earthquake and an overreach. But in reality, it is a careful, circumscribed ruling, one that gives Trump the power to end DACA if his administration can figure out how to do it legally. There’s little doubt that, if the president wins a second term, he will rescind DACA the right way, once again putting Dreamers in the crosshairs.

At bottom, Roberts’ opinion is about political accountability. If Trump and his allies want to strip lawful status from Dreamers, the chief justice indicated, they must be clear and candid about their reasons for doing so. The American people deserve to know why an administration would take such a dramatic and damaging step. Trump’s appointees cannot just claim, without persuasive evidence, that they are legally obligated to end DACA. At the end of the day, the president, who is accountable to the voters, must own his decision.
More...

Tony Stark · Jun 19, 2020

Here4money said:

More...

Delusional

Cuddles · Jun 19, 2020

Tony Stark said:
Delusional
More...

I'd say the proper word here is heartless. He's not wrong in what he said concerning the court.

Dr. Love · Jun 19, 2020

El OchoCinco said:
I do not worship or praise any self indulgent talk show host who preaches hypocritical political commentary be they from CNN or FOX..... it is about self respect for not being brainwashed.
More...

You remind of the Chinese people who have been totally brainwashed by the state controlled media that communism is the amazing system of government.

In the western world people like you have been brainwashed by the left controlled media that somehow the left's political dogma is superior than the right's and then the right should be shut down.

The right doesn't want to shut down the left imo. It's good to have challenges from both sides.

The article posted is non-MSM. You might be surprised of what you can learn.

Do you got what it takes to hear ideas that challenge your present beliefs?

El OchoCinco · Jun 19, 2020

Dr. Love said:
You remind of the Chinese people who have been totally brainwashed by the state controlled media that communism is the amazing system of government.

In the western world people like you have been brainwashed by the left controlled media that somehow the left's political dogma is superior than the right's and then the right should be shut down.

The right doesn't want to shut down the left imo. It's good to have challenges from both sides.

The article posted is non-MSM. You might be surprised of what you can learn.

Do you got what it takes to hear ideas that challenge your present beliefs?
More...

Not from you as you have portrayed yourself to be quite biased and one sided.

Also why do I give a fuck what you think and need to watch your videos?

I am not brainwashed by any media becuase I have criticized both the FOX and CNN biases equally and find them both full of shit..

So some random guy posting a video is in the same camp....

CaptainObvious · Jun 19, 2020

People should be more concerned about the court refusal to hear 2nd amendment cases. Once again Comrade Roberts leans left.

Tony Stark · Jun 19, 2020

Here4money said:
I'd say the proper word here is heartless. He's not wrong in what he said concerning the court.
More...

I was referring to " I have wanted to take care of DACA recipients better than the Do Nothing Democrats"

El OchoCinco · Jun 19, 2020

CaptainObvious said:
People should be more concerned about the court refusal to hear 2nd amendment cases. Once again Comrade Roberts leans left.
More...

What 2d Amendment Case needs to be heard? 2d A seems pretty well protected.

Cuddles · Jun 19, 2020

El OchoCinco said:
What 2d Amendment Case needs to be heard? 2d A seems pretty well protected.
More...

I think nutters are pushing their luck w/full autos and bump stocks again