• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal




The fates of almost 1 million people brought to the country illegally as children, known as DREAMers, are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.


The court granted an appeal to the Trump administration's decision to end the DACA program, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.




While public approval for DREAMers is high — around 80% in most public opinion polls — the issues in the case are tricky. Were the administration willing to concede that President Barack Obama acted legally in enacting the program, the Trump administration could rescind the program as long as it provided a good reason and followed the rules for such a policy reversal.



Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?
My prediction is that the conservative majority will side with Trump.

As awful as this is, it is the Presidents right to reverse policies of his predecessor. It's horrible, but I believe Trump can do it.
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?

It’s not correct for the President to unilaterally create a law like Obama did with DACA, that responsibility resides with Congress. So ideally SCOTUS will allow Trump to do away with the DACA executive order and Congress will get its collective head out of its ass and pass legislation that deals with it once and for all.
 
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out, just in time for 2020.
 
My prediction is that the conservative majority will side with Trump.

As awful as this is, it is the Presidents right to reverse policies of his predecessor. It's horrible, but I believe Trump can do it.

The DACA cases were about whether DHS followed the Administrative Procedure Act when it rescinded the memo that implemented DACA. The APA was passed by congress. It binds executive agencies, requiring them to do various things in specific ways. A president cannot simply order an agency to ignore the APA.

So unless this is some wildly different case, it's not about a "right to reverse policies of his predecessor". It's not about one EO reversing another. It's about legislation that governes executive agency action.
 
It’s not correct for the President to unilaterally create a law like Obama did with DACA,

He didn't create a law. That too is false.

DACA = exercise of prosecutorial/executive discretion. It was a decision about how to allocate limited resources in enforcing the law. Obama's choice was to focus on criminals rather than college kids who hadn't done anything wrong. That's not "creating a law", no matter how many times Fox may have called it that.
 
He didn't create a law. That too is false.

DACA = exercise of prosecutorial/executive discretion. It was a decision about how to allocate limited resources in enforcing the law. Obama's choice was to focus on criminals rather than college kids who hadn't done anything wrong. That's not "creating a law", no matter how many times Fox may have called it that.

Then you should stop watching Fox, I don’t.

His executive order had all of the elements one would expect in a law, complete with forms, certification, procedures, etc. You can object to my shorthand of calling it creating a law, but doesn’t change the impact of his executive order.
 
A sitting President can rescind Executive Orders at any time while still in office, regardless of whether the order was made by the current President or a predecessor. Executive Orders are guidance instructions for the Agencies and Departments under Executive Authority. They can be a general directive or detailed policy instructions. The President has the power to rescind, modify, or add to them.

NOTE: This has nothing to do with Regulations promulgated under the Law which created the Agency. However, if processes to enforce the Executive Order resulted from attempts to follow the E. O., then IMO they become moot when said order is rescinded.

In the case of DACA, it was actually a "policy" pushed by President Obama, and issued by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Any "policy" instigated by a member of the Executive Branch can be modified by the President. Trump simply announced an end to this policy effective 03/05/20, and passed it off to Congress to resolve.
 
Last edited:
Then you should stop watching Fox, I don’t.

His executive order had all of the elements one would expect in a law, complete with forms, certification, procedures, etc. You can object to my shorthand of calling it creating a law, but doesn’t change the impact of his executive order.

DACA was not implemented via executive order.
 
A sitting President can rescind Executive Orders at any time while still in office, regardless of whether the order was made by the current President or a predecessor. Executive Orders are guidance instructions for the Agencies and Departments under Executive Authority. They can be a general directive or detailed policy instructions. The President has the power to rescind, modify, or add to them.

NOTE: This has nothing to do with Regulations promulgated under the Law which created the Agency. However, if processes to enforce the Executive Order resulted from attempts to follow the E. O., then IMO they become moot when said order is rescinded.

DACA was neither created nor rescinded by executive order though, so I’m not sure of the relevance.
 
A sitting President can rescind Executive Orders at any time while still in office, regardless of whether the order was made by the current President or a predecessor. Executive Orders are guidance instructions for the Agencies and Departments under Executive Authority. They can be a general directive or detailed policy instructions. The President has the power to rescind, modify, or add to them.

NOTE: This has nothing to do with Regulations promulgated under the Law which created the Agency. However, if processes to enforce the Executive Order resulted from attempts to follow the E. O., then IMO they become moot when said order is rescinded.

In the case of DACA, it was actually a "policy" pushed by President Obama, and issued by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Any "policy" instigated by a member of the Executive Branch can be modified by the President. Trump simply announced an end to this policy effective 03/05/20, and passed it off to Congress to resolve.

That’s only kind of true. Sitting presidents can rescind executive issued policy of preceding presidents ONLY if they are someone other than Trump.
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?

100% of them should be required to report. Any with any felony convictions - deported. Any who live a welfare career lifestyle - deported. Anyone who refuses to accurately account for their time in the USA - deported. Anyone who was a high school dropout - deported. Anyone who fails to report is deported.

There should be a standard to be met demonstrating the person is a positive to this country. They have NO inherent right to be here. We decide whether to grant that PRIVILEGE - or not.
 
Last edited:
DACA was neither created nor rescinded by executive order though, so I’m not sure of the relevance.

See completed post #8 above.

The first part was posted as an argument against those who insist E.O.'s can't be rescinded "at will."

The second part was to emphasize it was merely a policy, which can also be rescinded or modified by the President. Which he did.

The reason for my third sentence suggesting "waiting" in my tagline is because I don't use a program to complete an issue I am posting. I just type it at the time in the Forum, submit, then read it and modify it within the allotted time for corrections. It causes problems sometimes, I know. But to be totally honest, if I feel something is important enough to respond to, then I want it read generally by as many members as possible. Showing up after page three reduces that possibility significantly. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
See completed post #8 above.

The first part was posted as an argument against those who insist E.O.'s can't be rescinded "at will."

The second part was to emphasize it was merely a policy, which can also be rescinded or modified by the President. Which he did.

Policies entered by agencies through memoranda, as in this case, can certainly be modified or rescinded. However, agency action has to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. There are limits around what they can do. That is what is at issue here.

And there was no executive order, so while yes, I agree with your description of executive orders, I don't understand why you put it in this thread.
 
He didn't create a law. That too is false.

DACA = exercise of prosecutorial/executive discretion. It was a decision about how to allocate limited resources in enforcing the law. Obama's choice was to focus on criminals rather than college kids who hadn't done anything wrong. That's not "creating a law", no matter how many times Fox may have called it that.

Yes he did create law. He tried DARPA under the same protocal as DACA and it was shut down. This is the first time DACA has been challenge.
obama attempted to change immigration law via fiat instead of by congressional act the way he is supposed to do.

Not being here legally is wrong.
Yes it is changing law. The law states that if you are not here legally and if you do not have proper documentation that says you can be here
then you must leave.

It is the job to enforce the laws of the US whether he agrees with them or not.
he does not have the power to change them which is what DACA did.
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?

Didn’t Obama admit openly that he did not have the constitutional authority to let them stay? There might lie your answer. We will see.
 
If the SCOTUS has any integrity left they will HAVE to side with the Trump administration on this as a matter of law. DACA is not law...its an Executive Memo. As such, Executive Memo's are null the moment the next administration declares them to be so. If they uphold DACA they are ****ting on the Constitution and empowering a monarchy.

If the rat party truly cares about this they would have taken it on legislatively during the Obama administration.
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?

Well, if the Supremes decide that Trump has the power to end DACA, don't y'all go crying about Trump. Go talk to your Congressman.

Let's face it...Trump wanted Congress to deal with the issue two years ago. They wouldn't. It's on them.
 
Policies entered by agencies through memoranda, as in this case, can certainly be modified or rescinded. However, agency action has to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. There are limits around what they can do. That is what is at issue here.

And there was no executive order, so while yes, I agree with your description of executive orders, I don't understand why you put it in this thread.

Doesn't matter policies can be changed at will. otherwise future presidents are trapped with stupid decisions of past presidents and that is not how it is supposed to work.
The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012.

any memo can be undone or changed by the next president.

this is prevents rule by fiat and why congress passing laws is so important.
if obama can issue a memo trump can issue a new one and the courts that keep
ruling against it are wrong.

trump needs no more reason to undo it than obama did to create it.
it is not law it is not set in stone.

the only reason that trump or the agency needs is that they want to and have the authority.
 
Policies entered by agencies through memoranda, as in this case, can certainly be modified or rescinded. However, agency action has to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. There are limits around what they can do. That is what is at issue here.

Are you pointing out this section?

(e) Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.
Administrative Procedure Act | National Archives

I guess that would depend on if the DACA "requirements" listed were actual "rules" promulgated by the hearing processes required prior to implementation, or merely "policy" instructions.

If the first is the case, then all that is required would be to have a hearing. NOTHING requires the agency to go along with the recommendations of any hearing presenter. The Agency may still do whatever it wanted to, making such hearings pro forma. Still, a case can be made for at least a "hearing." :shrug:

In the second case, policy can be modified as needed by the Agency. There is no special requirement under the APA for "hearings" or any other steps that I can see. Can you?

And there was no executive order, so while yes, I agree with your description of executive orders, I don't understand why you put it in this thread.

Yet people in this thread, and in others, have been arguing that a President cannot simply change or rescind a prior executive order. That was why I posted that portion of my reply.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter policies can be changed at will. otherwise future presidents are trapped with stupid decisions of past presidents and that is not how it is supposed to work.
The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012.

any memo can be undone or changed by the next president.

this is prevents rule by fiat and why congress passing laws is so important.
if obama can issue a memo trump can issue a new one and the courts that keep
ruling against it are wrong.

trump needs no more reason to undo it than obama did to create it.
it is not law it is not set in stone.

the only reason that trump or the agency needs is that they want to and have the authority.

That is patently untrue. Agency action is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act. There are regulations put in place by Congress, about how agencies may create and rescind rules.
 
Supreme Court Takes Up DACA Appeal











Should nearly a million young people, brought to the USA as children and educated here, be allowed to stay in the US, or deported to a country they don't know? That's an easy one for most of us to answer. Now, the question is: Will Obama's policy of letting them stay, or will Trump's policy of deporting them pass muster with the SCOTUS? I know what I hope will happen, but will it? What do you think?

They don’t belong here. Send me back.
 
My prediction is that the conservative majority will side with Trump.

As awful as this is, it is the Presidents right to reverse policies of his predecessor. It's horrible, but I believe Trump can do it.

I agree they will likely side with Trump. Next step, ICE roundups and detainment centers.
 
Are you pointing out this section?

Administrative Procedure Act | National Archives

I guess that would depend on if the DACA "requirements" listed were actual "rules" promulgated by the hearing processes required prior to implementation, or merely "policy" instructions.

If the first is the case, then all that is required would be to have a hearing. NOTHING requires the agency to go along with the recommendations of any hearing presenter. The Agency may still do whatever it wanted to, making such hearings pro forma. Still, a case can be made for at least a "hearing." :shrug:

In the second case, policy can be modified as needed by the Agency. There is no special requirement under the APA for "hearings" or any other steps that I can see. Can you?



Yet people in this thread, and in others, have been arguing that a President cannot simply change or rescind a prior executive order. That was why I posted that portion of my reply.

I'm referring 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The APA provides that a court “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious is up for debate, and I'd recommend reading Judge Bates' April opinion for a rundown and explanation. I do tend to side with his opinion, finding that the rescission memo was basically written poorly enough the Court has no choice but to find it arbitrary and capricious. But again, I would say it's up for debate.

But what's not up for debate is that agencies do not have unlimited authority to act or to rescind prior agency action.
 
That is patently untrue. Agency action is controlled by the Administrative Procedure Act. There are regulations put in place by Congress, about how agencies may create and rescind rules.

The APA requires that to set aside agency actions that are not subject to formal trial-like procedures, the court must conclude that the regulation is "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.

that is simple. the law is that the president can establish or undo past memo's.
they don't need a reason why the constitution give them that authority.

obama issued an executive memo which trump has the constitutional right to change the courts if they are following
the law so far have been wrong.

which is why i see the court undoing this unless roberts pulls another mickey like he has in the past and make up stuff that doesn't exist.
 
Back
Top Bottom