DACA Upheld by Supreme Court

[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.

So what retard think my post was about DACA instead of an Article Five Convention?

 

[Asclepias]

Another loss for the blobbers.

View attachment 351799

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

Just another perfect example that we will never fix America depending on thugs in robes or in congress but by using our 2nd amendment EXACTLY as our founding fathers explained.

Ok so for the millionth time. When does your revolution begin? I want to be there when you get euthanized like the feral inbred you are.

 

[Astrostar]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

 

[Jitss617]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

 

[Billiejeens]

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

It's a little scary.

Hey TDS people (((Listen Up)))))

The Scotus has decided that a President can literally make any law that he wants and as long as the Scotus agrees with it, no future President can ever undo it.

So when President Trump is re-elected and appoints 1 or 2 additional Justices President Trump can make any executive order that he likes and feel confident that it will be upheld.

I like that.

 

[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...

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

If burning cities and black on black crime is winning, i cant wait to see what losing is.....

 

[White 6]

This could have gone either way and indeed DACA could and probably will fall at sometime in the future, just not the way trump wanted to kill it, due to the poor work of administration lawyers and trump in they way they wrote and defended their rescission of DACA. But, as I said it really could have gone either way. Could it be, the stinging losses for the trump administration, the last few days are the result of attitudes being generated in the court by trump himself and his antics, statement and style of leadership over the last few months? Kind of like if the Republican Senate is not going to exercise any oversite or control on this moron, we'll remind him he doesn't get to rule by fiat, roughshod over America? Roberts made it clear, DACA is not approved, but the administration must get it's shit together and do the job right or STFU.

I've wondered this same thing myself. I've wondered if they considered that Trump will never actually pass anything so they are pretty much going to leave the status quo intact.

Just a thought.

I figure his administration will go back to the drawing board and do a better job and make another attempt, maybe even get it right, possibly in time for the election. Remember how many attempt he made on his travel ban, before giving up and writing something legal? Trump does not bother with legal, figuring that he is above all that, as "THE" leader and would very much like to assume carte blanche authority of other dictatorial assholes he admires, but it just isn't that way here. Presidency of The United States of America was just not designed that way, so he keeps getting slapped on the nose, like a dog peeing on the carpet or the Constitution and rule of law to remind him there are rules that he WILL follow or get slapped again.

 

[TheParser]

Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.

Those DACA recipients are not returning to their parents' homelands.

There is no way that most Americans of any political persuasion would want to see them dragged to waiting airplanes to take them to impoverished lands that they know nothing about. That would be cruelty beyond belief.

Like it or not, those 800,000 individuals are staying here.

And if Mr. Biden wins (which seems likely) and the Dems also take both Houses (which seems likely), the Dreamers' legal status will be finalized in their favor.

In short, the matter is settled.

 

[okfine]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

Fat Donnie is saying that "Roberts doesn't like me" That narcissist wannabe president thinks everything is about him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

(Berg when he discovers the ruling wasn't on the merits of the law)

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

Fat Donnie is saying that "Roberts doesn't like me" That narcissist wannabe president thinks everything is about him.

Since he lives in your head rent free, I guess he shouldn't be to unhappy.

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

So what retard think my post was about DACA instead of an Article Five Convention?

Well, your headline does start with DACA upheld -
An article 5 convention is about as likely to appear as a unicorn Convention.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation.

www.cnn.com

Thanks to the Chief Justice, this is one less thing President Biden will have to concern himself with during the last ten days of January 2021.

You mean VP Harris.

Biden will be in the basement playing with lego's.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Supreme Court or no Supreme Court.

Those DACA recipients are not returning to their parents' homelands.

There is no way that most Americans of any political persuasion would want to see them dragged to waiting airplanes to take them to impoverished lands that they know nothing about. That would be cruelty beyond belief.

Like it or not, those 800,000 individuals are staying here.

And if Mr. Biden wins (which seems likely) and the Dems also take both Houses (which seems likely), the Dreamers' legal status will be finalized in their favor.

In short, the matter is settled.

Is that, win the "Sleepyest, Creepyest, Most forgetful, Candidate of the Democrat Party, ever award?

 

[Baz Ares]

 

[candycorn]

This will just be rewritten and another order will be sent this week

Wow...lol

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

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.

Because the Court is full of cowards, if they can avoid making a ruling they will.

 

[ColtMadeMenEqual]

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.

Of course it isn't unconstitutional

But it IS a President politicizing the judicial system. I wonder why liberals didn't care then but are upset when Trump allegedly does it?

This is the conundrum many people face by being dishonest hypocritical fuck stains.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

i guess that they didn't get to the heart of it, because the dispute before the court was not about the heart of it.

"The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency fol-lowed in doing so."

 

[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 instructed them 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.

Obama himself called it unconstitutional. Then did it anyways.
And he is a "constitutional scholar" remember?

This is what Obama said:

"In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places," Obama said June 15, 2012. "This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people."
Obama did urge Congress to act, saying, "There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because these kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments."

This is the Republicans' spin on Obama's words:

It has been a theme among Republicans and conservatives that before he penned DACA, Obama had said that he was bound by law to pursue deportations. The Speaker of the House John Boehner posted a list of 22 times when Obama said "he couldn’t ignore or create his own immigration law."
Indeed, Obama did tell a Univision audience Oct. 25, 2010, that "I'm president, I'm not king."
But he continued on to say, "If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves.
In announcing DACA, Obama emphasized that it was a temporary policy. He did not issue an executive order. Rather, the policy was released by the Department of Homeland Security.
Later in his presidency, Obama expanded the approach of deferred action to families, and for various reasons, that was blocked by the courts. There is no question that his interpretation of his authority grew over time.

Obama hedged but didn't say he lacked legal right on DACA

President Donald Trump sat with congressional leaders for an open conversation about cutting a deal on the fate of about

www.politifact.com