Stephen Miller has lost - DACA upheld by SCOTUS

[JEDIYoda]

Yea, that is why I dont think we should become too happy with these two decisions. For sure if Trump gets re-elected, he is going to stack the court even more with "conservatives". Hell, we have to desperately hope that: 1. Ginsberg can hold on another few months
2. Trump does not get re-elected.
And despite all the apparent mental and physical deterioration, bat shit crazy shenanigans, racist agenda, corona virus mishandling, and unfavorable polls, I still think it is 50/50 at best that Biden can win.

Well take heart, we all know if Trump can ignore the Supreme Court`s decisions so can an elected Democratic President!
What goes around comes around!! Or payback is a bitch!!

 

[K1052]

1) from what i understand, Obama made DACA by executive order.
Trump had his attorney general at the time, jeff sessions, say that DACA was illegal instead of issuing a new executive order abolishing DACA.

Supreme Court ruled that it was legal and Jeff Sessions was wrong.

Why cant Trump just issues an executive order reversing Obama?

2) what if Trump ignores the Supreme Court and orders ICE to deport the kids anyway?

1) The courts have held that since people (some 700k of them) rely on the program that the APA applies to changing it. All the DOJ has done is declare the program illegal without giving any good reasons why that is, which is a no no.. Similarly Trump can't issue an EO countermanding Obama's for the same reason. Courts would say nope.

2) Any officer who took such action would face criminal and potentially civil liabilities. Also pardons given to facilitate the commission of a crime would likely be declared void by the courts, should Trump get any ideas.

 

[ElFenix]

Well take heart, we all know if Trump can ignore the Supreme Court`s decisions so can an elected Democratic President!
What goes around comes around!! Or payback is a bitch!!

trump isn't going to ignore it. trump is going to read john roberts's roadmap for doing this legally and is going to follow it.

 

[K1052]

Please, dont give him any ideas.
Personally, I dont really understand the DACA order. Would it not have been much better to give them an expedited path to citizenship?

It was beyond Obama's power to give them a path to citizenship. It was within his power to determine prioritization for immigration action which is what he did.

 

[K1052]

trump isn't going to ignore it. trump is going to read john roberts's roadmap for doing this legally and is going to follow it.

Never, ever, underestimate the ability of this administration to not be able to find its own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Anyway the admin withdrew DACA in September of 2017 and it took till June 2020 to get a final answer out of the courts. This is going nowhere unless he wins re-election.

 

[woolfe9998]

It was beyond Obama's power to give them a path to citizenship. It was within his power to determine prioritization for immigration action which is what he did.

Yes, exactly. Giving an actual path to citizenship requires legislative action, but there are/were too many neandrathals in the US Congress for that to happen.

Obama could, however, prioritize enforcement. Similar to what he did with marijuana prosecution, also through executive order. He didn't say don't enforce marijuana laws. He said prioritize the limited federal law enforcement resources to other crimes before those. Which is exactly what he did here with DACA.

 

[Jhhnn]

Never, ever, underestimate the ability of this administration to not be able to find its own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Anyway the admin withdrew DACA in September of 2017 and it took till June 2020 to get a final answer out of the courts. This is going nowhere unless he wins re-election.

Correct. Fucking the Dreamers is a highly unpopular idea, anyway. Trump is lucky he lost.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

A system to over rule the SCROTes is not a new idea. Checks and balances must apply there also. How to do it legally is for others to figure out. Some sort of oversight process between the Legislative and Executive branches probably with ratification by others, but not to the extent of a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It was beyond Obama's power to give them a path to citizenship. It was within his power to determine prioritization for immigration action which is what he did.

Roberts also made it very clear in his decision that this ruling is not a validation of Obama’s exercise of power, only that Trump’s administration provided inadequate justification for reversing it.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Never, ever, underestimate the ability of this administration to not be able to find its own ass with both hands, a map, and a flashlight.

Oh he knows where his ass is. He's got his head buried there quite often.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Roberts also made it very clear in his decision that this ruling is not a validation of Obama’s exercise of power, only that Trump’s administration provided inadequate justification for reversing it.

He spelled out what they need to do to change his vote. Will it get done before the election... probably not.

 

[Jhhnn]

A system to over rule the SCROTes is not a new idea. Checks and balances must apply there also. How to do it legally is for others to figure out. Some sort of oversight process between the Legislative and Executive branches probably with ratification by others, but not to the extent of a Constitutional Amendment.

Not sure if serious... That mechanism already exists in the legislative process.

 

[Jhhnn]

Roberts also made it very clear in his decision that this ruling is not a validation of Obama’s exercise of power, only that Trump’s administration provided inadequate justification for reversing it.

I haven't read the decision, so I'm not sure if that's Roberts' doublespeak or your own.

 

[sportage]

So, what do we know for sure?

That Trump will order another exec order claiming "something" which will have no influence what so ever other than to give Donald the last word, which he must always have.

Donald Trump will shoot Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead, on fifth avenue, so Trump can pick Eric Trump as Ginsburg's replacement. And you know Mitch McConnell would confirm, and you know AG Bill Barr would never prosecute.

"Someone" on Trump's staff is taking notes for the next tell-all book.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Like he's going to get the chance.

Hang in there RBG...he knows he can't fire Supreme Court judges, right?

Even if he could nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, the Senate wouldn't be able to confirm the nominee because it's so close to an election and they would have to wait until after the election was over, right? RIGHT?

 

[dawp]

Not sure if serious... That mechanism already exists in the legislative process.

I think there is talk about doing what FDR tried to do but couldn't which is increasing the court size and appointing more liberal judges. if I remember right the court size isn't set in stone.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Not sure if serious... That mechanism already exists in the legislative process.

I'm not talking about passing new laws. I'm talking about a way to invalidate bad decisions like: https://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/3709...affic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law

 

[brycejones]

Hang in there RBG...he knows he can't fire Supreme Court judges, right?

Even if he could nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, the Senate wouldn't be able to confirm the nominee because it's so close to an election and they would have to wait until after the election was over, right? RIGHT?

Moscow Mitch would fast track that shit. He would move heaven and earth to get another conservative justice on the bench.

 

[ondma]

Moscow Mitch would fast track that shit. He would move heaven and earth to get another conservative justice on the bench.

Yea, best case, Trump will still be in office until January 2021. If Ginsberg were forced to resign soon, there is plenty of time to force somebody through.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not talking about passing new laws. I'm talking about a way to invalidate bad decisions like: https://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/3709...affic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law

I'll accept the judgement of eight justices over yours.

 

[brycejones]

I'm not talking about passing new laws. I'm talking about a way to invalidate bad decisions like: https://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/3709...affic-stop-ok-despite-misunderstanding-of-law

We have ways to do that already legislation if the law was deficient in some way or constitutional amendment if the ruling is based on constitutional grounds.
Those are the only options under our constitution.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think there is talk about doing what FDR tried to do but couldn't which is increasing the court size and appointing more liberal judges. if I remember right the court size isn't set in stone.

The size of the court is determined by law & has varied at times. Given the way the last 2 vacancies were filled increasing their number is a reasonable remedy.

 

[JEDIYoda]

all this talk mis moot if the Republicans could get an amendment to the condtitution passed....

 

[dawp]

all this talk mis moot if the Republicans could get an amendment to the condtitution passed....

that won't happen with the current house and senate makeup, it takes at least 2/3 of each to get it out to the states.

 

[JEDIYoda]

that won't happen with the current house and senate makeup, it takes at least 2/3 of each to get it out to the states.

Of course, but that is one way around this issue....but it is a very long way around!