[AnotherUnixGeek]

The decision does not mean that the Roberts is now a liberal

He may not be a liberal. He's definitely a coward, a man who hides behind "judicial restraint" to avoid making the hard but correct rulings.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks.

[sphinx]

So: when a president steals a march through an entirely illegal executive action, it is set in stone because people will come to rely on the change in policy.

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.

[Tell It Right]

Is there a legal basis for saying that President 45 can’t make an EO undoing an EO of President 44 or any prior President without writing that alternatives were researched?

[2banana]

So basically.

Ignore federal law.

Make up your own law.

Write an EO (stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool)

Fight any repeal of it until the illegals are ingrained...

Sorry - too late!!!!

Any clue how much these illegals cost the American taxpayer in free education? Free medical? Taking slots in college from American citizens? Taking jobs that would have went to American citizens? The crimes they have committed while here? Etc.

“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.”

[plain talk]

“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.’””

Reliance? Government enacts laws all the time that change course. So once Congress passes a law or there is an EO that results in people being reliant on a benefit, handout, etc we can never change it because people are reliant on it?

Shirley you are not saying this is an issue in this case.

[DOC44]

Somebody is pulling a powerful string on Roberts. Compromised.

[FirstFlaBn]

be cognizant that longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’

So why wouldn't this legal "principle" wipe out all bans on existing firearms already possessed by citizens?

People relied on the law existing at the time of purchase, investing time and money

Precedent is a scam. They can find some pretext to do whatever they wish.

[ModelBreaker]

Roberts only applies this standard when defending left wing positions. Did he ever apply it to an Obama executive order?

The blah blah reasoning is just window dressing. When you start adding up the holdings, Roberts has gone over to the dark side almost completely in cases that would piss off the left mightily. He will find a way to rationalize bad results to reach those results and he has four willing allies on the court.

Robert’s rule of law now is,

IF (1) the Appellant is Donald Trump; and (2) Ruling for respondent would really piss off the left;

THEN find a way, any way, to rule for respondent and pretend you are applying a consistent legal doctrine.

[ModelBreaker]

And I will add to my previous post a prediction.

There is no amount of reasoning or reasons the Trump administration could provide that would satisfy Roberts. So if this comes before Roberts again one of two things will happen:

(1) An Obamajudge will have ruled against Trump and get confirmed by an appellate court. The Supremes will just let it stand. Or,

(2) The Supremes grant certiorari and Roberts again finds the reasoning inadequate or, if he feels too silly doing that, he will fall back on a procedural issue like standing or mootness to affirm.

Roberts is playing for time. He hopes Trump will be defeated and then, of course, there will be no case for him to rationalize a bad decision. Goal accomplished.

[pepsi_junkie]

Someday when Trump is out of office and a dem wants to undo everything he did (or maybe it will be a GOPe nevertrumper, same thing) will the SCOTUS block them from doing it? Something tells me no, this ruling only applies for a max of 1-5 years.

[moehoward]

“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.

[Dr.Deth]

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.

[AlaskaErik]

I’m beginning to believe Roberts is a deep state plant. Remember, 43 is a deep state establishment RINO.

[Stravinsky]

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.

[jrestrepo]

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.

[RetiredTexasVet]

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.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The rule of law is DEAD!

The Supreme Court has upheld that which was never legal.

[arthurus]

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.

[amihow]

Could the Court have considered the reliance issues of Americans who relied on the immigration laws DACA assaulted, who were harmed by DACA Ex. Order?