DACA Upheld by Supreme Court

[candycorn]

Another loss for the blobbers.

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

 

[L.K.Eder]

SCOTUS to rule on DACA case and in favor of good real Americans...in favor of Trump. Just in time for November

Another nail in the coffin of Mexicrats....The DACA case has been somewhat lost as the media has grown to be scared shitless of this one. Eliminating DACA was one of Trumps campaign promises and it looks like he may execute and deliver just in time. This will energize his base (30 states and...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

It is okay, soon there wont be a country left, and all those Latinos will be heading back to Mexico on their own, because they wont want their shit burned and looted...

 

[TNHarley]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

It is okay, soon there wont be a country left, and all those Latinos will be heading back to Mexico on their own, because they wont want their shit burned and looted...

what's the matter, son. tired of winning?

 

[okfine]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said Trump is a moron.

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said the Trump Admin doesn't know their ass from a whole in the ground.

 

[martybegan]

It wasn't actually upheld. It was ruled that the administration went about ending it in the wrong way.

And there were so many opinions agreeing in part and dissenting in part, that it will take days to figure out what the hell the court actually said, and if it was 9-0, 5-4, 7-2, or whatever.

 

[martybegan]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said Trump is a moron.

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said the Trump Admin doesn't know their ass from a whole in the ground.

Kind of. Again, so many dissents in part and agreeing in part that you don't know for true what the actual end result is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said Trump is a moron.

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said the Trump Admin doesn't know their ass from a whole in the ground.

Whole
LOL

 

[okfine]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said Trump is a moron.

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said the Trump Admin doesn't know their ass from a whole in the ground.

Kind of. Again, so many dissents in part and agreeing in part that you don't know for true what the actual end result is.

I know Roberts has again sided with liberal justices.

 

[OldLady]

It sounds like the Supreme Court didn't like "Obama wrote it" as the reason for trashing DACA.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what, if anything, to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Supreme Court rules for 'Dreamers,' rejects Trump's repeal of immigration program

The Supreme Court, in another rebuke of Trump, rules that his decision to cancel DACA, a program that protected young immigrants, was not justified.

www.latimes.com

 

[martybegan]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said Trump is a moron.

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

5-4 decision. Roberts said the Trump Admin doesn't know their ass from a whole in the ground.

Kind of. Again, so many dissents in part and agreeing in part that you don't know for true what the actual end result is.

I know Roberts has again sided with liberal justices.

But in part so have all of them. This one is going to take a while to figure out.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Roberts has to go

 

[JimBowie1958]

This ruling by the Supreme Court basically exemplifies why an Article 5 convention is required to put things back into good order.

By saying Trump cannot undo a previous administrations EO with his own EO, this effectively binds Presidents by previous Presidents EO's, (if the SCOTUS likes the prior EO, apparently)

Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Trump administration’s effort to end the Obama-era program that offers legal protections to young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

www.foxnews.com

We have so many bad court decisions to reverse and the Article 5 convention is the only way to do it.

Federalist Society on Article Five Convention Status

Congress may face this issue very soon. At least 27 state legislatures have valid applications outstanding for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment (BBA). At least six states without BBA applications have outstanding applications calling for a plenary convention. Thus, if aggregation is called for, 33 of the 34 applications needed for Congress to call a convention likely exist.​

​

After consideration of the language of Article V, case law, historical practice, and other factors, this paper concludes that Congress should add existing plenary applications to the BBA total, and that it should call a BBA convention if and when the aggregated total reaches 34.​

So if Trump has a landslide win and the GOP regains the House, maintains the Senate and picks up a majority in a state that has not yet called for an article Five Convention, only one more state is needed to call the convention if a sympathetic Republican House rules in favor of aggregating the BBA applications with the 'plenary' 'blank check' applications and have an instant super majority of states in favor.

So next year could be the beginning of addressing a huge number of egregious SCOTUS rulling, two of which have come in the last two weeks alone.

 

[pknopp]

It sounds like the Supreme Court didn't like "Obama wrote it" as the reason for trashing DACA.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what, if anything, to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

Supreme Court rules for 'Dreamers,' rejects Trump's repeal of immigration program

The Supreme Court, in another rebuke of Trump, rules that his decision to cancel DACA, a program that protected young immigrants, was not justified.

www.latimes.com

I fully support them staying and I hate to do this but I still feel that discussing things as they are is simply doing that.

I really hate to do this.........two ways to look at this. The "hardships" were addressed. It's why it was said that a law actually needed passed. I agree with that. What Obama did was weasily. He promised the Hispanics he would address this first thing. He put it off and put it off until his way out the door and did it in an EO as opposed to working to get a law passed. (People support letting them stay, he could have made a successful argument at any point).

On the other hand the court could rule that if you understand a law needs passed, pass it and then end the program.

IMO basically the ruling smacks all players here.

 

[okfine]

Roberts has to go

Didn't take some humper very long to say that. Capricious. The word for today.

 

[task0778]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

You don't think the fact that the EO is unconstitutional is a good reason?

 

[OldLady]

So the president cant just end an unconstiutional EO without good reason.
Nice precedent.

I wonder why they didn't get to the heart of it? They did the same thing with the bake-the-cake case. They kicked it back on technicalities and didn't touch the real problem with a ten foot pole.

The Constitution, though, does give the President authority to "manage" the agencies under his control, which includes DHS. Obama's EO said to DEFER deportation if certain conditions were met. It didn't make them "legal" or "citizens," just allowed them to work legally and get student loans for college and put their deportation on the back burner.
I'm not sure that's unconstitutional, TN.

 

[Maxdeath]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

As I always said, the court has a way of moderating itself

I know the left has a problem understanding things but actually all they did was say that it could not be overridden by DHS without proper reasons. It was sent back to DHS. It could still be brought up at a later date. They made no ruling on on DACA itself