Posted on 06/18/2020 1:54:34 PM PDT by street_lawyer
I assume that if there are comments some of them will be accusing me of trolling or being a liberal, but I am an attorney and I am just considering the facts. The decision does not mean that the Roberts is now a liberal, although standing up for Roberts in this instance in this form is likely to earn me hateful comment
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 followed in doing so. The DACA Obama policy had two elements 1. Deferred Deportation 2. It allowed illegal aliens to be eligible for benefits.
Kavanaugh: when an agency rescinds a prior policy, its reasoned analysis must consider the “alternative[s]” that are “within the ambit of the existing [policy].” Here forbearance was not simply “within the ambit of the existing [policy],” it was the centerpiece of the policy: DACA, after all, stands for “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 111a (emphasis added). But the rescission memorandum contains no discussion of forbearance or the option of retaining forbearance without benefits.
In my opinion the reason the Court did not approve of what Trump’s DHS did in reversing what Obama’s DHS did is that 200,000 people “relied” on the deferment, changed their position to their detriment, such as enrolling in degree programs, starting businesses, purchased homes, married and had children. Hiring and replacing would cost employers $6.3 billion, and a $215 billion economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years. States and local governments would lose $1.25 billion in tax revenue each year.
Kavanaugh wrote: When an agency changes course, as DHS did here, it must “be cognizant that longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’”
Trump’s DHS should have kept the deferment in place and only challenged the entitlement to benefits.
Here Kavanaugh gives Trump advice on how to get his way: Had Duke considered reliance interests, she might, for example, have considered a broader renewal period based on the need for DACA recipients to reorder their affairs…Alternatively, Duke might have considered more accommodating termination dates for recipients caught in the middle of a time-bounded commitment, to allow them to, say, graduate from their course of study, complete their military service, or finish a medical treatment regimen. Or she might have instructed immigration officials to give salient weight to any reliance interests engendered by DACA when exercising individualized enforcement discretion… Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.
Thanks.
Yes, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
+++++
Come on now. You can’t leave us hanging on that comment. You should at least point to the section of the APA-46 that is applicable.
And, when you have some time can you review the case transcript to see if there was any reference by the judges or anyone to the Procedures Act.
OK. You are probably too busy to do all this research but I’m betting you are correct and, at least for me, this is the heart of the matter.
I want to see Roberts' flight logs.. My spidey sense tells me he's been to Epstein's Island... HE'S GAY and refuses to come out!!!
OBVIOUSLY compromised. Worthy of investigation!
“In my opinion the reason the Court did not approve of what Trump’s DHS did in reversing what Obama’s DHS did is that 200,000 people “relied” on the deferment, changed their position to their detriment, such as enrolling in degree programs, starting businesses, purchased homes, married and had children.”
I’m sorry. This is reaching for an excuse to not make the obviously proper decision.
This was known to be a TEMPORARY program. If any effected chose to enter into activities -short or long term- that is on them.
“Ok: Donald Trump should simply order that all federal spending on K-12 education be converted immediately into school vouchers. When families apply for and receive the voucher, their reliance means the policy is irreversible. ‘
Love your thinking. And it’s spot on.
We’ve gone straight through equal protection under law on all fronts.
There is selective inception of the law by the legislatures, to favor some groups of citizens and punish others.
There is selective enforcement of law by the executives, where the same action by some people is subject to punishment, while by some others it is not.
There is selective interpretation of the law, where political considerations and mob appeasement subvert justice, and the Constitution itself.
If this were happening on another continent we might call it a soft apartheid.
America can survive with any one of the above still buttressing a functioning basis of a civil society. It cannot survive the destruction of all three.
“Somebody is pulling a powerful string on Roberts. Compromised.”
I’ll remove my tin foil do rag for a sec. The timing is problematic. Had this went our way it could bite Trump in the keister in a few months. Both sides need this issue.
This will end up going our way. Whether that means these Illegals get sent packing after or not remains to be seen,
I’m beginning to believe Roberts is a deep state plant. Remember, 43 is a deep state establishment RINO.
Roberts is a cowardly scumbag. That’s why he went with the libs here. Thomas calls it out for what it is in his dissent.
I for one appreciate comments from people who are more knowledgeable in a field than I, even if I do not agree. I am not afraid of opinions. So many people, including FR, are to the point that you cannot have an intelligent conversation with them. In this case, it seems like DHS can still win if they deal with the procedural stuff.
Regarding Roberts, Obamacare has pretty much sealed his fate. However, I would like to hear your opinion about that as well, if you have the time to reply.
The decision is here. It is all about the Administrative Procedure Act; neither the majority or the dissent relied on anything else.
The APA was enacted in 1946 as a check on unelected bureaucrats. It says (to oversimplify) that if a federal agency (here, it was the Department of Homeland Security) issues a regulation, it must explain what they did and why; the courts can then review the agency's decision if it was "arbitrary and capricious." Here, the DHS just overturned Obama's policy without touching all the APA bases. All 9 justices agreed that DHS can revoke the DACA policy, but the majority said they have to follow the APA procedures first.
Research needs to be done to find out what the Progressives have on Roberts. He needs to be exposed publicly so that his only option is to resign.
The silver lining is the AWAKENING
I had an easy time explaining Roberts decision to a nurse. She was livid
Q pushing awakening is getting real
He should sign an executive order mandating that the Second Amendment means that every American is REQUIRED to own an semi auto high capacity rifle and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
The rule of law is DEAD!
The Supreme Court has upheld that which was never legal.
Obama issued the EO setting it up therefore it is the immutable Las of the Land and cannot be changed as Obama was/is the Holy Arbiter of Everything. Altering his Work is Blasphemy.
Much thanks. FR needs more rational analysis like yours.
Thank you, you’re too kind.
All nine justices agreed that the Department of Homeland Security can revoke Obama's EO. The majority just said that it has to go through the Administrative Procedure Act to do it.
The APA is one of the few protections we have against the decisions of unelected bureaucrats. You should not trash it without thinking through the implications.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.