Posted on 02/16/2018 7:46:10 AM PST by Helicondelta
The Supreme Court will hold a closed-door meeting to decide whether to take up a lower court opinion that blocked the White House plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a program at the forefront of the debate on illegal immigration.
In an unusual move, the nation's highest court will consider the possibility of reviewing the opinion without a ruling from a federal appeals court
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I guess I don’t understand why this is not an open and shut case. Unless I’m wrong DACA is not a law. It was nothing more than an EO from a president. If a president can issue an arbitrary EO on this subject it is 100% clear that another president has the same right. Issue an EO in the opposite direction on the subject. Trump can do away with DACA.
How stupid do you need to be to be a Judge?
Its NOT a law so there is nothing to review.
In the Private Sector, when a new CEO comes in and wants the bathrooms painted red, he does it because he is the boss.
If the Board of Directors or stockholders don’t like it, they fire him.
What about illegal does they not understand?
If SCOTUS wasn’t against the Federal Judge Decision on DACA they wouldn’t have taken it up in this manner. They would just let it stand in the court.
A Coalition of All Democratic Forces, Part III: What if Trump Wins?
Given these numbers, it’s tempting to not plan for a Trump presidency. Personally, I’d like nothing more than to sweep the possibility under the high-impact-but-low-probability event rug, right alongside all those asteroid impacts and worldwide pandemics I don’t spend much time preparing for.
Better yet, I would love to put it in the category of horror movie, the sort of zombie apocalypse I can enjoy imagining knowing that it is impossible.
But events with a seven percent chance of happening actually take place all the time, and events that have a 16 percent chance of happening take place more than twice as often as that.
This is why I keep life insurance, even though I have a much lower than seven percent chance of dying this year. And while I don’t think I have a 16 percent chance of major medical expenses either, I still maintain a health insurance policy, as do other healthy people who know what’s good for them. Responsible people plan for disasters of this likelihood; and while the Sunday shows yesterday were full of talk of whether the presidential race is over, a major party candidate for president always has a chance of prevailing.
Always.
So our democracy needs a health insurance policy.
Indeed, it’s not enough to imagine how the Coalition of All Democratic Forces, which I posited last Monday, might respond to a Clinton victory, a subject which I discussed discussed on Tuesday.
We need to imagine as well how such a coalition should respond to the unthinkable: What if Trump wins?
The point is that there is no reason at this stage to imagine that the legislature will be a viable venue for push-back, which is a shame considering the powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Coalition of All Democratic Forces should certainly see what kind of use it might make of the legislature, but realistically, we should probably expect that the coalition’s job in Congress will be to prevent Trump from passing anti-democratic legislation. That is, the task in Congress will be a negative one of denying Trump the use of the Article I powers, not the positive one of the coalition’s using them itself.
That leaves the tool that will certainly be available: the courts. The courts have a few obvious advantages, starting with hundreds of independent judges of both parties whom Trump cannot remove from office and who don’t have to face his supporters in forthcoming elections.
If Trump wins it, the Coalition of All Democratic Forces needs to be prepared to see him in court.
Double entendre there. Those three do need to buy a clue.
We need a revolution in this country!
IF the rule of law means anything in this country, the Obama EO should be immediately declared unconstitutional in a 9 to 0 vote. It would also mean Trump’s delay would be unconstitutional as well because you can’t delay suspending an unconstitutional order.
Will it be “Feelings or Law” ? LOL
You’r right. It amazes me that politicians, no matter where they stand on immigration, talk about DACA as if it’s the law of the land. Why in the world would congress so easily surrender their constitutional authority to the executive and judicial branches is beyond my understanding.
Yes, wonder what they have on Roberts?
I can’t think of a good reason for a lower judge out in some corner of the country having the power to shut down the entire country over an issue that should be decided at the national level.
At most they should have to apply to the scotus for a shut down.
Some of them must be very upset that the lower federal court is doing something so absolutely preposterous and contrary to the law.
SCOTUS is actually in charge of managing the lower courts, so yes, as their titular boss they NEED to smack them down HARD for not respecting process, precedent and the Constitution.
That little federal court actually decreed that trump must continue to let unlimited new people enter the country and and enroll under the program. They actually said they could see no sound reason for trump not to do that. Even though their decision will mean that millions and millions of illegals will flood to this country to take advantage of what they are offering. Absolute liberal radicalism and insanity to destroy our country.
If SCOTUS allows this to stand the day will come when POTUS orders a troop deployment to respond to a defense emergency and some judge in San Francisco will issue an injunction to stop it. The slippery slope on this is very dangerous.
Really? I think you need to go back and change your post or ask for it to be deleted because it is totally hyperbole. We need to be accurate in our statements.
>
I am.
If statements by Trump during the campaign can be used.
Statements from RBG and Sotomayor can be used to compel recusal.
>
Now you’re looking for CONSISTENCY?? P-L-E-A-S-E.
All the Leftists HAVE is 2x-standards and hypocrisy.
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.