Judicial Tyranny: Supreme Court Keeps the Dreamers!

IWB ^ | Chris Black

[davikkm]

The Supreme Court of the United States just told President Trump: you’ll have to keep the DREAMERs. The thing is, on Monday, the Supreme Court delivered a stunning ruling, which makes for a serious setback when it comes to the issue of the DREAMERs, the DACA recipients, to whom, as you know, President Trump put a deadline o March 5th: either you (the Congress) get a deal for DACA recipients, of, after that, they’re eligible for deportation, as they lose all the protections that were given to them by Barack Hussein Obama.

The Supreme Court essentially said on Monday: not so fast, Mr. President, as Trump had directly appealed a lower court ruling from a San Francisco judge, one of those judicial supremacists, a liberal activist on the court, that actually told the POTUS: you don’t have the right to end or terminate the DACA program created by Obama via an executive order.

[madison10]

Crap.

[NewJerseyJoe]

>> the issue of the DREAMERs, the DACA recipients,

Since the author doesn't seem to know that these are two different things, I'll decline to read the rest of his article...

[Reno89519]

Why is Trump not making better cases for these repeated court loses. If a list were made, I bet he is going to top the list of presidents with court rulings against their administrations. Granted the courts are biased against him, but still, I think more should be done and more should be made of this. Where’s the followup? Like transgender, he quietly lets it go into effect and we now have the military enlisting more. The DACA debacle means more here, the ones here stay longer. Sad.

[Stevenc131]

It was a procedural ruling, they didn’t take sides on DACA, they didn’t say DACA is legal. They just said the case would have to go through the normal appeals process. The Trump administration was trying to take a particular shortcut directly to the Supreme Court which the Court seldom allows (only a handful of cases in decades one story said).

Of course the liberal media is trying to spin it as the Court ruling in favor of Dreamers, has nothing to do with that, they just said the case had to go the regular court route before it comes to the Supreme Court.

[Architect of Avalon]

The President should act in accordance with his Presidential authority as granted by the Constitution.

[CMAC51]

That is not what the Supreme Court said. It said the dreamer issue is not urgent enough to subvert the normal flow of appellate issues. The 9th circuit will review the appeal. After their ruling the Supreme Court will undoubtedly take it up.

[Intolerant in NJ]

...Trump had directly appealed a lower court ruling from a San Francisco judge...according to judge whatsisname on Fox, this was the real problem - Trump appealed directly to the SC instead of going back through the original judge, getting turned down, then going up the chain - apparently not a ruling on the issue, but one on the procedure......

[tom h]

Fellows, even this commentator is wrong. The SCOTUS did not decide against the President; they just denied the emergency writ to the Supreme Court. They want to see how other lower courts rule before they make a final ruling, if necessary.

What this means is that the SCOTUS does not consider this to be an emergency issue. Gotta admit, as much as I support the President, this is true.

Trump can still begin deporting DACA recipients and Dreamers, which was his wedge issue all along. Let the Democrats howl, fine. Let the Dreamers protest, even better, because then Americans will really see that they are not all valedictorians and Medal of Honor recipients.

Here's an example of one of those exemplary dreamers, just in the news today. Apparently, she threatened to shoot up a high school.

[dsc]

“Of course the liberal media is trying to spin it as the Court ruling in favor of Dreamers, has nothing to do with that, they just said the case had to go the regular court route before it comes to the Supreme Court.”

That’s the way I read it too. Might be just an excess of caution.

[pepsi_junkie]

The SCOTUS punted on this, didn't give a ruling. But that means the lower court judge's ruling still stands. And we, for the moment, live in a world where a President can use his discretion to decree that a class of people (non-citizens, no less) shall be treated as above the law and not proecuted for crimes they are known to have committed and continue to commit and future Presidents are not allowed to use their discretion to get rid of that and require executive agencies to enforce the law as written. Basically this court is requiring Trump to let people break the law.

Remarkable.

[tom h]

"Since the author doesn't seem to know that [Dreamers and DACA recipients] are two different things, I'll decline to read the rest of his article..."

He's a moron in more ways than one. The SCOTUS did not decide against the President, they just decided to not proceed with an emergency review, skipping the Appeals Courts. Meaning, they were either too busy or didn't consider it to be a true emergency.

A modest setback, yes, but not a loss. If Trump began deporting them anyway, daring the courts to try and stop, then it would become an emergency and the SCOTUS might then review it.

[savedbygrace]

The Obama admin policy times out in a few days. Unless the 9th circuit gives themselves the power to extend that, the case will mute and the USSC won’t have to hear it.

[NorthMountain]

The President should act in accordance with his Presidential authority as granted by the Constitution.

His authority is:

1) Recognize that 0bama EXCEEDED his authority, and violated the law, by enacting the DACA policy.

2) Begin deporting illegal aliens, as specified by the law.

[KC Burke]

Spot on.

Crap article.

[Lurkinanloomin]

No, the program goes on until the court cases are resolved.
A judge put a stay on ending DACA.

[zeestephen]

Sorry, this is NOT tyranny.

Conservatives are ignoring one simple fact.

Donald Trump can end DACA any time he wants with this two sentence Executive Order:

“Based on the exact language in the Immigration Act of 1965, the DACA kids are unlawfully present in the USA. Therefore, I order the Secretary of Homeland Security to remove them.”

Unfortunately, Trump wants to give the DACA kids Amnesty, so he will never write that Executive Order.

[zeestephen]

Re: “Basically this court is requiring Trump to let people break the law...Remarkable.”

Trump can end DACA any time he wants to.

Please see my Comment #17.

[Renegade]

Trump has no authority to extend an Unconstitutional Act.

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

What is your reasoning in posting this crap? SCOTUS just sent it to appeals. Headline and copy are misleading. I await your response.