Supreme Court snubs Trump, keeps DACA immigration program in place for now

[sangha]

I didn't.




I didn't say anything about the headline.

Good for you!

I am just wondering if you, or any other right wingers, have anything to say aside from complaining about whether certain words, like snub and smacked down, were used correctly. You know, like saying something about the actual legal issues in play here?

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Good for you!

I am just wondering if you, or any other right wingers, have anything to say aside from complaining about whether certain words, like snub and smacked down, were used correctly. You know, like saying something about the actual legal issues in play here?

By now, it's clear to me that they don't, but maybe you'll get lucky and receive a response with any substance at all!

 

[Harshaw]

Good for you!

I am just wondering if you, or any other right wingers, have anything to say aside from complaining about whether certain words, like snub and smacked down, were used correctly. You know, like saying something about the actual legal issues in play here?

By now, it's clear to me that they don't, but maybe you'll get lucky and receive a response with any substance at all!

:shrug:

Not my problem you guys think this Supreme Court thing means a lot more than it does. Being the actual topic of the thread, it's what I focused on.

As for the merits of the lower court's decision, that's something I might be willing to discuss with MMC, but I wouldn't bother with sangha.

Simply put, the lower court is wrong. And that doesn't have a thing to do with the ins and outs of DACA, about which I'm entirely uninterested. It has to do with the plenary powers rule, the unitary executive, and non-justiciability.

But again, that's not what the thread is about.

 

[sangha]

:shrug:

Not my problem you guys think this Supreme Court thing means a lot more than it does. Being the actual topic of the thread, it's what I focused on.

As for the merits of the lower court's decision, that's something I might be willing to discuss with MMC, but I wouldn't bother with sangha.

Simply put, the lower court is wrong. And that doesn't have a thing to do with the ins and outs of DACA, about which I'm entirely uninterested. It has to do with the plenary powers rule, the unitary executive, and non-justiciability.

But again, that's not what the thread is about.

Since I could always use a good laugh, tell me what I think it means that it doesnt

 

[LowDown]

I scratch my head wondering your basis for saying that "left wingers" prioritize the dreamers over American citizens. How are the dreamers hurting Americans?

It's all the Democrats are talking about. Nothing about jobs or better wages for Americans, and they think a tax cut for Americans is nothing.

Illegal aliens hurt Americans in a number of ways. If you can't think of any then you are part of the problem.

 

[bearpoker]

It's all the Democrats are talking about. Nothing about jobs or better wages for Americans, and they think a tax cut for Americans is nothing.

Illegal aliens hurt Americans in a number of ways. If you can't think of any then you are part of the problem.

Be specific. Tell me how DACA recipients are hurting Americans. Provide citations of actual harm.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

:shrug:

Not my problem you guys think this Supreme Court thing means a lot more than it does. Being the actual topic of the thread, it's what I focused on.

As for the merits of the lower court's decision, that's something I might be willing to discuss with MMC, but I wouldn't bother with sangha.

Simply put, the lower court is wrong. And that doesn't have a thing to do with the ins and outs of DACA, about which I'm entirely uninterested. It has to do with the plenary powers rule, the unitary executive, and non-justiciability.

But again, that's not what the thread is about.

Again, you're welcome to your opinion. We're posting in an opinion forum after all. But you might want to temper how you characterize other people's opinions. Well, mine anyway. I don't particularly care if you exaggerate what other people say, but I haven't been wrong about this OP. Anyway, we've already been here and done this. Let's move on.

Based on your references to plenary powers, a unitary executive, and non-justiciability, I understand that you consider the DACA matter to be something within the president's absolute control and somehow outside the purview of the courts. You also said that you're neither focused on nor particularly interested in DACA. So I wonder: What in your mind qualifies a president's omnipotency? The thread has pretty well stalled out, so I'm good with taking it to an ancillary space.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Be specific. Tell me how DACA recipients are hurting Americans. Provide citations of actual harm.

I can't wait to see the response. <Popping popcorn>

 

[Terryj]

You mean like Trump refusing to enact the sanctions against Russia that were mandated by congress?

Congress can enact sanctions against Russia without the presidents signature, the president doesn't control congress. All congress has to do is to step up to the plate and do it.

 

[notquiteright]

Still I scratch my head wondering why illegal aliens are so much more important to left wingers than their fellow American citizens. This decision is not anything like a final decision on the matter. I have faith that the court will uphold the law. Otherwise, what is the point of having a country?

I still scratch my head wondering why right wingers think it puts one above the other? It isn't a zero sum game, no matter what the rabid right ranters try and claim...

Laws are written , changed and dropped, soon as the Republican't grow a pair and pass laws to modify and broken immigration system the better off the Republic will be...

Time to recognize reality and quit worshipping a Norman Rockwell fantasy... eace

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Congress can enact sanctions against Russia without the presidents signature, the president doesn't control congress. All congress has to do is to step up to the plate and do it.

Just so you know, the president has to sign, veto, or acquiesce to laws passed by Congress. In this case, he approved a bill and then refused to enforce it like a coward.

 

[Harshaw]

Again, you're welcome to your opinion. We're posting in an opinion forum after all. But you might want to temper how you characterize other people's opinions. Well, mine anyway. I don't particularly care if you exaggerate what other people say, but I haven't been wrong about this OP. Anyway, we've already been here and done this. Let's move on.

Based on your references to plenary powers, a unitary executive, and non-justiciability, I understand that you consider the DACA matter to be something within the president's absolute control and somehow outside the purview of the courts. You also said that you're neither focused on nor particularly interested in DACA. So I wonder: What in your mind qualifies a president's omnipotency? The thread has pretty well stalled out, so I'm good with taking it to an ancillary space.

DACA was a program created by Executive Order, not legislation. It's entirely an internal Executive Branch policy, not law. It's premised on prosecutorial discretion, i.e., the choice of what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. That's not something which is actually reviewable by the courts. The courts have no say in which cases prosecutors decide to try.

That which is created by Executive Order can always be rescinded by Executive Order. To claim such a thing is unconstitutional is no different from claiming that the ordinary repeal of a law is unconstitutional.

As for the president's "omnipotence," at no point have I ever claimed such a thing. In fact, you'll find that I've argued against Executive fiat vociferously many times. And in fact, having nothing to do with the subject matter of DACA, far from being Presidential omnipotence, it was outside of the President's power to enact it in the first place. If you believe it wasn't, then it's actually you who is far closer to arguing for Presidential omnipotence than I am. DACA needed to be done through legislation, not Executive fiat.

But no matter -- whether or not the Executive Order creating DACA exceeded the President's authority, another Executive Order rescinding it is not.

 

[radcen]

Still I scratch my head wondering why illegal aliens are so much more important to left wingers than their fellow American citizens.

This decision is not anything like a final decision on the matter. I have faith that the court will uphold the law. Otherwise, what is the point of having a country?

I wonder the same thing.

Then again, I also wonder why it hasn't been dealt with by Congress if the popular opinion numbers are indeed as drastically lopsided as some claim.

 

[sangha]

DACA was a program created by Executive Order, not legislation. It's entirely an internal Executive Branch policy, not law. It's premised on prosecutorial discretion, i.e., the choice of what to prosecute and what not to prosecute. That's not something which is actually reviewable by the courts. The courts have no say in which cases prosecutors decide to try.

That which is created by Executive Order can always be rescinded by Executive Order. To claim such a thing is unconstitutional is no different from claiming that the ordinary repeal of a law is unconstitutional.

As for the president's "omnipotence," at no point have I ever claimed such a thing. In fact, you'll find that I've argued against Executive fiat vociferously many times. And in fact, having nothing to do with the subject matter of DACA, far from being Presidential omnipotence, it was outside of the President's power to enact it in the first place. If you believe it wasn't, then it's actually you who is far closer to arguing for Presidential omnipotence than I am. DACA needed to be done through legislation, not Executive fiat.

But no matter -- whether or not the Executive Order creating DACA exceeded the President's authority, another Executive Order rescinding it is not.

It is if it is arbitrary and capricious.