...demonrats..
Ah, but one set of rules for The Dear Leader and another for President Trump. /s
That is a warning to SCOTUS if there ever was one.
John Roberts is pro-illegal. He said as much during his own confirmation hearing, when someone asked him if U.S. taxpayers should pay for children of illegals’ education.
Trump is correct. The Obama era rule was a violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. That type of violation puts the republic at risk. This demonstrates how badly the Democrats were willing to subvert the Republic for their own purposes, and how dangerous that activity was.
The same method that was used to create DACA (thin air) will then be available to POTUS to use for everything with a good precedent.
...demonrats..
No, the judges have ruled that what the administration actually did - arguing that DACA was unconstitutional - didn't hold water; all agree that a new EO saying simply the-policy-is-now-different would be within the executive's sphere of authority.
If you're frighted of what any POTUS may do, maybe think of how much power should be invested in the Executive branch in the first place?
It's funny this is when the leftists discover the beauty of separation of powers and dare I say it ... federalism ...
Give 'em hell Mr. President.
Trump sure knows how to EF with Dem doesn’t he?-)
DJT plays 4-D chess while the Dims play tiddleywinks.
No wonder they are wetting themselves.
DACA has no basis in law.
Obama was correct that he does not have the authority.
If the GOP wasn’t on board the Cheap Labor Express they would have sued to stop this before it got started.
But they wanted any amnesty they could get to further the Bush Plan for North Mexico (aka USA).
DACA is an illegal program started illegally by an illegal President.
But since this Supreme Court blessed his usurpation, I expect them to uphold it.
...and spreader bar with birds now deployed. Bring DemTunas to the top!
"Don't throw me into that briar patch!"
Dem's can't win on this one.
This is a man who understands that no one person - not even himself - should have too much power. That is as honest and incorruptible as they come...
...and yet, the Dems and the media (arm of the Dems) will continue to drone on and on about how immoral and power-crazed Trump is. Talk about projection!
I think all Americans should have at least 85 years to decide if they actually want to pay income tax.
Perhaps Trump might agree with me.
There he goes - threatening the Obama Judges again!
I’m on the side our government gave DACA to the folks, allowed them to attend our schools and join our military. It would be wrong now to take rhat away. I promote a pathway to citizenship for DACA but end all the other liberal policies affecting imigration. PDJT needs to get on TV and promote this with the deal of $25 billion over the next 5 years for border security. The people would support that.
One of the reasons I love Trump - he points out that which the enemy wants to keep hidden and tells them if they win, he wins even bigger....
Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security : "To be clear: we do not hold that DACA could not be rescinded as an exercise of Executive Branch discretion. We hold only that here, where the Executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA—but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required—the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under settled law. The government is, as always, free to reexamine its policy choices"
Napolitano v DHS: "All agree that a new administration is entitled to replace old policies with new policies [...] the new administration didn’t terminate DACA on policy grounds. It terminated DACA over a point of law, a pithy conclusion that the agency had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority."
Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen: "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program. [...] The question before the court is thus not whether Defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that Defendants have not done so. First, the decision to end the DACA program appears to rest exclusively on a legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and violated the APA and INA."
NAACP v. Trump: "while immigration policies are generally “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference,” there are good reasons to scrutinize a policy more carefully when it is based solely on an agency’s reading of domestic statutory law."