RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Genero36



Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 11188



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/18/20 9:41 am    ::: Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA Reply Reply with quote


Quote:
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The opinion marks the second time in a week when the Supreme Court -- bolstered with two of President Donald Trump's nominees -- has ruled against the Trump administration.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/daca-immigration-supreme-court/index.html



_________________
I'm all for the separation of church and hate.
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect. The Supreme Court opinion did not block the president from ending DACA. All nine justices agreed that the president could end or otherwise change the DACA policy. The majority simply said that the MANNER in which DHS ended DACA did not literally comport with a series of prerequisite federal procedures called the APA (Administrative Procedure Act).

CNN gets to the truth in paragraph 6 of the article for anyone who reads that far:

Quote:
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."


Trump has already directed DHS to end DACA again using a procedure that comports more clearly with the APA.

This was exactly the same issue and the same kind of decision that was involved in the Supreme Court ruling against the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Supreme Court said that that the Department of Commerce did not comport fully with the required APA procedures. In that case, with the 2020 census constitutionally upon the country, there was no time for the Department of Commerce to do the whole census procedure over, so the administration stopped the attempt.

With DACA, there is no time constraint on a do-over.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15425
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 1:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect. The Supreme Court opinion did not block the president from ending DACA. All nine justices agreed that the president could end or otherwise change the DACA policy. The majority simply said that the MANNER in which DHS ended DACA did not literally comport with a series of prerequisite federal procedures called the APA (Administrative Procedure Act).

CNN gets to the truth in paragraph 6 of the article for anyone who reads that far:

Quote:
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."


Trump has already directed DHS to end DACA again using a procedure that comports more clearly with the APA.

This was exactly the same issue and the same kind of decision that was involved in the Supreme Court ruling against the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Supreme Court said that that the Department of Commerce did not comport fully with the required APA procedures. In that case, with the 2020 census constitutionally upon the country, there was no time for the Department of Commerce to do the whole census procedure over, so the administration stopped the attempt.

With DACA, there is no time constraint on a do-over.


Doesn't it bother you all in MAGA World that your administration is so incompetent at following legal procedures?


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20399



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 2:08 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect. The Supreme Court opinion did not block the president from ending DACA. All nine justices agreed that the president could end or otherwise change the DACA policy. The majority simply said that the MANNER in which DHS ended DACA did not literally comport with a series of prerequisite federal procedures called the APA (Administrative Procedure Act).

CNN gets to the truth in paragraph 6 of the article for anyone who reads that far:

Quote:
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."


Trump has already directed DHS to end DACA again using a procedure that comports more clearly with the APA.

This was exactly the same issue and the same kind of decision that was involved in the Supreme Court ruling against the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Supreme Court said that that the Department of Commerce did not comport fully with the required APA procedures. In that case, with the 2020 census constitutionally upon the country, there was no time for the Department of Commerce to do the whole census procedure over, so the administration stopped the attempt.

With DACA, there is no time constraint on a do-over.


Doesn't it bother you all in MAGA World that your administration is so incompetent at following legal procedures?


Glenn lives in MAGA World and speaks for everyone else who lives there and this is his incompetent administration and if he isn’t bothered by all that then there must be something wrong with him.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 2:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect. The Supreme Court opinion did not block the president from ending DACA. All nine justices agreed that the president could end or otherwise change the DACA policy. The majority simply said that the MANNER in which DHS ended DACA did not literally comport with a series of prerequisite federal procedures called the APA (Administrative Procedure Act).

CNN gets to the truth in paragraph 6 of the article for anyone who reads that far:

Quote:
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."


Trump has already directed DHS to end DACA again using a procedure that comports more clearly with the APA.

This was exactly the same issue and the same kind of decision that was involved in the Supreme Court ruling against the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Supreme Court said that that the Department of Commerce did not comport fully with the required APA procedures. In that case, with the 2020 census constitutionally upon the country, there was no time for the Department of Commerce to do the whole census procedure over, so the administration stopped the attempt.

With DACA, there is no time constraint on a do-over.


Doesn't it bother you all in MAGA World that your administration is so incompetent at following legal procedures?


First, it's our administration -- all of America's, unless someone is seceding from the Union.

Second, yes, I believe that in order promptly to fulfill very important campaign promises Trump made to the electoral majority that elected him, some of the administration lawyers were too hasty and sloppy in how they crafted some of his executive orders, such as DACA and the first travel ban.

Third, the thing about this 5-4 Supreme Court decision that disturbs conservative jurisprudes is that Obama followed no APA procedure when instituting DACA, which makes it plainly unlawful ab initio, yet Trump gets dinged for trying to rescind a no legal procedure Obama DACA order with one that is only arguably insufficient. That was one of the main points of the dissenters in addition to their view that Trump's procedure was sufficient.

Fourth, in Obama's last term, 14 of his executive positions were overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional or otherwise illegal overreaches, ten of those by unanimous decisions. Overall, the Obama administration was 79-96 in the Supreme Court, the biggest loss record of any modern president.

I offer you this extended contextual response in the perhaps futile hope that it will dissuade you from thinking that there is nothing more sophisticated in complex administration positions and Supreme Court opinions than bigotry and xenophobia.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15425
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
PUmatty wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect. The Supreme Court opinion did not block the president from ending DACA. All nine justices agreed that the president could end or otherwise change the DACA policy. The majority simply said that the MANNER in which DHS ended DACA did not literally comport with a series of prerequisite federal procedures called the APA (Administrative Procedure Act).

CNN gets to the truth in paragraph 6 of the article for anyone who reads that far:

Quote:
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."


Trump has already directed DHS to end DACA again using a procedure that comports more clearly with the APA.

This was exactly the same issue and the same kind of decision that was involved in the Supreme Court ruling against the citizenship question on the 2020 census. The Supreme Court said that that the Department of Commerce did not comport fully with the required APA procedures. In that case, with the 2020 census constitutionally upon the country, there was no time for the Department of Commerce to do the whole census procedure over, so the administration stopped the attempt.

With DACA, there is no time constraint on a do-over.


Doesn't it bother you all in MAGA World that your administration is so incompetent at following legal procedures?


Glenn lives in MAGA World and speaks for everyone else who lives there and this is his incompetent administration and if he isn’t bothered by all that then there must be something wrong with him.


Jammer, thank you for that great response that I can only assume is indicative of the level of discussion you are mourning others refusing to participate in. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from you.


jammerbirdi



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 20399



Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 4:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I'm just breaking down the essence of what you said for you.

That was a passive aggressive personal attack you made on another poster here who was not talking to you or about you or anyone here and who was just using his expertise to illuminate people on this board as to what was wrong with the CNN headline.

Glenn is tenacious. But maybe somebody else would look at that and be discouraged by seeing how his impersonal analysis of a news item landed him a personal jab here in this community.

I'm going to show you who you really are and what you're really doing here. And not just you.



_________________
Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 61447
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 4:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

People only point out process errors when they don't like the policy



_________________
The power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 13030
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 5:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect.

It's NOT "completely" incorrect: Add the words "...For Now!" and it's spot on.

jammerbirdi wrote:
Glenn is tenacious. But maybe somebody else would look at that and be discouraged by seeing how his impersonal analysis of a news item landed him a personal jab here in this community.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Glenn may be tenacious in posting volume, but he's invariably wimpy when his views are discredited--he just goes ghost. And he's wrong. A lot. Other, better legal minds here have corrected him routinely. And he's HARDLY "impersonal". Rolling Eyes

jammerbirdi wrote:
I'm going to show you who you really are and what you're really doing here. And not just you.

"God Complex" much? Rolling Eyes



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 6:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
No, the CNN headline is completely incorrect.

It's NOT "completely" incorrect: Add the words "...For Now!" and it's spot on.


Agree.

Howee wrote:
Glenn may be tenacious in posting volume, but he's invariably wimpy when his views are discredited--he just goes ghost. And he's wrong. A lot. Other, better legal minds here have corrected him routinely.


This is an interesting reaction. It's true that I often state an opinion and never return to the issue or thread. That's for two reasons. First, I don't read most of the political threads on this forum, or don't read any more after I have a say or two. Not interested. Second, I don't want to get into an extended back-and-forth argument that will convince no one to change their minds, especially when it's with a poster whose opinion I value about the important thing here -- women's basketball. Not worth it. That's often my practice even in my own threads.

But I'd be interested in some examples where I've been "routinely corrected" as "wrong" on legal matters. In close legal cases, especially when the facts are not in, there's rarely any right or wrong; there are only arguments. Since this topic is about the interpretation of a Supreme Court case, I'd be most interested in where I've been routinely wrong in my analyses of them, after I've gone ghost.

No need to fill up this thread with these personal examples, and I have no intention of debating any such examples here. You can just PM me if you want. I'm just curious and will go back and read the threads and reply there if appropriate.
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 15425
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 6:11 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

jammerbirdi wrote:
I'm just breaking down the essence of what you said for you.


Thank you. I deeply appreciate it. Your knowledge and understanding of myself is so much more than I ever could have hoped for.

I am grateful.

But I want to be sure I understand ... Is this the way you want us to all talk in Area 51 now? I want to make sure I am doing it right.


calbearman76



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 4404
Location: Carson City


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 6:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I would say that the other part that is missed is that is effectively a death knell for Trump in his first term. There is no question that with a second term Trump could change this but there is no chance it will get back to the Supreme Court by November.

And to the point that Obama established this policy with no legal procedures that is just not true. Obama made clear his rationale for the policy and his position as supported by the discussions with Congress, the bill passed by the Senate and the reasons why it was in the best interests of the country. Obama was expanding rights to individuals rather than taking them away. Under those circumstances requiring those procedural aspects is necessary.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 6325
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 06/20/20 7:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

calbearman76 wrote:
I would say that the other part that is missed is that is effectively a death knell for Trump in his first term. There is no question that with a second term Trump could change this but there is no chance it will get back to the Supreme Court by November.


There may be no rescinded DACA in Trump's first term as a practical matter, but there could be. If Trump rescinds DACA with a revised order it will end, unless and until someone successfully challenges the revised order in court. That court ruling, if there is one, has no chance of being ruled on by the Supreme Court before the end of Trump's term.

calbearman76 wrote:
And to the point that Obama established this policy with no legal procedures that is just not true. Obama made clear his rationale for the policy and his position as supported by the discussions with Congress, the bill passed by the Senate and the reasons why it was in the best interests of the country. Obama was expanding rights to individuals rather than taking them away. Under those circumstances requiring those procedural aspects is necessary.


Well, it all was a lot more complicated than that. Obama issued original DACA in 2012 by a memoradum that didn't even attempt to comply with the APA, as far as I know. The thing is, no one challenged original DACA in court on that basis. So, original DACA went into effect.

Then, Obama tried to expand DACA in 2014. That got challenged by some states. The federal District Court enjoined the expanded DACA, but left original DACA in place. The federal Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, 2-1. The Supreme Court upheld the injunction on a 4-4 split after Scalia died. So, expanded DACA was held illegal, but original DACA was not affected by any of this.

Then Trump's DHS issued an order to rescind original DACA because it was required to do so by an opinion from the Attorney General that DACA was unlawful. The DHS rescission was challenged and the federal District Court agreed with the government that original DACA was illegal, but didn't enjoin original DACA pending Supreme Court review.

The recent Supreme Court decision didn't rule on the legality or illegality of original DACA, but instead held 5-4 that the Trump rescission attempt didn't comply sufficiently with the APA. In essence, they punted.

In sum, I believe that if anyone had standing to bring an APA suit against original DACA, it would have been held illegal. But, as Pilight pithily put it, no one cared enough about the policy in 2012 to challenge the process.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin