Govt is OUR creation.WE tell it, not the other way around.
Posted on 02/26/2018 6:40:20 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the Trump administration by refusing to hear the government's challenge to a lower court ruling that has temporarily blocked the administration from winding down the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The Department of Justice’s request was rare in that it asked the Supreme Court to jump ahead of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the case.
The court typically will only bypass an appellate court when there’s an emergency involving foreign affairs, a serious separation of powers concerns or when it has already agreed to hear another case dealing with the same question.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Trump should just do it anyway. DACA is not law.
Govt is OUR creation.Ninety percent of the headlines that report on legal procedings involving Trump that blare out “Trump Lost!!!” or “Trump Won!!!” are just way stations on a long road to a final decision."
And therein lies the problem.
Trump had intended to shut down illegal DACA on March 5th. That's 7 days from today.
The 9th circus probably won't rule on the issue until after the mid-terms.
So SCOTUS effectively told the executive branch, it has no power to decide when an (illegal) executive order can end...the 9th circus will determine the timeline.
But will Trump appoint justices that will upend the balance of power on the supreme court? That would be breathtaking.
Didn’t he just fire one for wanting to use Sharia Law?
I’m not saying that I agree with the decision - frankly, I think that they should have taken it, as this is an important foreign policy issue on which a federal court should have no say-so. But is IS just a procedural decision. We will have to wait for the 9th Circus to get slapped down in about a year. I wish it was sooner, but this is hardly the Titanic going down. Puhleeze!
Meanwhile, what happens if federal workers keep issuing work permits to dreamers? Courts have ruled both O’s EO and Trump’s EO are illegal. If Trump fires federal workers who keep the program going, some court will rule against that too.
That's the troubling part. I understand their reasoning about letting cases work through the system, but not when the precipitating event is blatantly unconstitutional as was Bathhouse Barry's DACA EO. This is just more confirmation that Mark Levin is correct in calling us a post-constitutional America.
I don’t remember the particular federal statute that the District Court relied upon, but it had something to do with there being a notice requirement and waiting period to stop various benefit programs - regardless of the merits, legally or otherwise. This would not apply, of course, if a final court ruling said, “It is unconstitutional.”
I’m expecting the latter in about a year. It sucks to wait, but we didn’t elect Trump to wipe his rear with the Constitution, like Obama did repeatedly.
DACA status is temporary under the DHS regulation. Like a driver's license, it has to be renewed. The lower court said it was within the executive's power to not grant any new DACA immunities from certain immigration laws; but he had to accept renewal applications.
At bottom, the argument was similar to "reliance."
It's a BS argument from the court, because it, itself, stomps all over reliance when it feels like it. The general rule is anything the government can give, the government can rescind (except DACA).
Nope. There’s apparently a particular statute that the District Court relied upon...and it has very specific procedures (that, at least, is my understanding and recollection - I could be wrong). Trump didn’t follow those procedures, apparently because no one thought that it’d be necessary. I expect that ultimately the USSC will say that Trump was right, that the Leftist judge was dead wrong...but we’ll have to wait for the 9th Circus to also make fools of themselves (again).
Hey, maybe Trump even gets another nomination to the Court by then. :>) Wouldn’t that frost the Leftist bastards!
That approximatrely what happened, except on both ends the "authority" is not an EO, it is a policy established by DHS.
The court said that the new DHS policy of refusing to accept DACA renewal applications violates legal principles. IOW, there is "another executive order," that is exactly what the court threw out.
Your driver's license parallel is a good one. DACA immunity has an expiration date, and must be renewed to stay in effect. The lower court order that renewal applciations must be entertained, but the is no bar to not granting new/additional DACA status.
Sorry, but that is wrong. The Chief Justice does not have that much power. There has to be 4 votes to hear a case.
I notice in a lot of decisions like this, a lot of ideas are floated by a lot of us that don’t know the entire, detailed story. I’m one of the worst offenders. It’s why I go into “academic” mode. i.e. I speak of acedemic concepts rather than the specific case.
In this case, if Obama created an EO with an expiriation date, then when that date comes, it has expired.
That is why they call them “expiration dates”. If someone sues to get it extended in court, the only way the court can entertain the suit is if there is some constitutional violation regarding the expiration date. Of course, that would be absurd in this case.
SCOTUS suggested that the 9th Circuit expedite this.
Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment DENIED without prejudice. It is assumed that the Court of Appeals will proceed expeditiously to decide this case.Docket for 17-1003
If the 9th Circuit does not move fast, and experience shows it can move fast, see immigration cases, I bet the Solicitor General is back to SCOTUS with a request for reconsideration in light of 9th Circuit delay.
The system established by DHS did not have an expiration date.
The deferred action to each applicant had an expiration date, so accepted applicants were required to renew "deferred action" (a sort of imunity/work permit arrangement) periodically.
The system is now split into two parts. The new applicant part is gone. The renewal part lives on, per court order.
Federal Courts have many widgets, not just the constitution. The widget used to reject the new DHS policy of not accepting renewal applications is the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
So "setting the agenda" does not mean which cases are to be heard. Learning something new every day....
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.