DACA lands before Supreme Court: Showdown over Trump bid to end ‘Dreamer’ program

FOX News ^

[Java4Jay]

The long-running battle over the Trump administration’s bid to end the Obama-era program for young undocumented immigrants known as “Dreamers” will land before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

[Magnum44]

What the hell does the SCOTUS have to do with it?

With the DACA order, nothing. With the activist judges making unlawful rulings, everything.

[odawg]

Now, logic demands that if the Supreme Court upholds Obama’s executive order, then succeeding presidents have been granted untold power henceforth.

However, there will probably be a 400 page ruling, with twists and turns and tiptoeing, that Obama’s order is merely one of a kind and has no relevance to any executive order issued subsequently.

[FlingWingFlyer]

You know what pisses me off? I voted for President Trump. I never voted for any of the morons on our Feral “courts”. I don’t appreciate the black robed tyrants having “showdowns” with the person I voted for to run the country. This is America. It’s not supposed to be that way.

[Alberta's Child]

This is the same Supreme Court that ruled in favor of Trump’s “Muslim ban” immigration policy, so I have at least some confidence in them on this one.

[gibsonguy]

Roberts slapped down AZ for enforcing Fed Laws. Sanctuary states are allowed. We are going to lose this one bank it.

[Starcitizen]

So was Obama’s Executive Order granting 100,000 Indians the right to work in the USA through H4EAD. Congress makes immigration law, not the President.

[sheana]

To all on this thread stating it was an EO. Do your research. It was NOT an Executive Order!! It was a memo.....about enforcement.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Supreme Court

Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg still breathes?

[Kozak]

Exactly.

“And there’s no guarantee they wouldn’t. The problem is partly legal, partly political. Courts have long held that Congress cannot “bind” future Congresses—that is, it can’t force a future session of Congress to carry on its own policies. That practice, formally known as “legislative entrenchment,” is seen as privileging one group of lawmakers over another, “binding” future to the priorities set in the present. In the 1996 case U.S. v. Winstar Corp., Justice David Souter quoted the British jurist William Blackstone, who said that “the legislature, being in truth the sovereign power, is always of equal, always of absolute authority: it acknowledges no superior upon earth, which the prior legislature must have been, if it’s [sic] ordinances could bind the present parliament.” The principle is more complicated in the United States, where the government is bound by the Constitution and any private contracts into which it enters. But as a general rule, any Congress can reverse the decisions of any past Congress. For example, Bob Dole repealed future tax cuts in the 1980s.”

If it applies to Congress, it sure as hell applies to EO’s.

[Erik Latranyi]

If the SCOTUS does not rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s EO, then the next Democrat POTUS will put it back in place.

[PghBaldy]

Kenny Rogers & Kim Carnes “Don’t fall in love with a dreamer,” https://youtu.be/7d6F9jDVhKQ

[12chachacha]

You guys just don’t get it, fools all of you. EO’s signed by Obama are constitutional even when they are unconstitutional and with Trump it’s visa versa. See? It all just zips over to the flip side.

[Theoria]

Yes. It seems like every thread we have to point that out. Even fox is running around saying it was a eo.

"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the 'memos' of war".

DHS[Obama admin] put out a memo. Trump had his own memo.

[TheConservativeTejano]

Roberts will rule it a tax. L

Partner, u r probably correct.

I am beginning to think is that we have way too many "Giant Sixth Grade Brains in the USSC and Legislative Branches of Gov'mint" and at all levels of gov'mint for sure. Heck, we have 3 million Gov'mint employees.

"Enough is Enough" of incompetence.

Heck, we already have enough of these "Giant Third Grade Brain Journalists" and we already know they are too highly paid.

[kabar]

Illegal program. It was started by an Obama Executive Order and ended by a Trump Executive Order. The only real question is what happens to the 800,000 given official status.

NB: DACA included all children 15 and under, unaccompanied and those coming with their parents. It is the reason why we have seen an enormous increase in unaccompanied children invading the country.

[pepsi_junkie]

It remains to be seen how the court will rule, however, on this complicated issue -- which concerns the limits of one president trying to rescind the policies of his predecessor.

What's so complicated? Democrat presidents are allowed to use their pens and phones to make policies forbidding the government from following the laws passed by congress and Republicans aren't allowed to use their pens and phones to correct the policy to require the law to be followed after all. Simple.

[Eddie01]

I hate that MF

[Regulator]

Thanks for putting legal flesh on the argument.

The Left is doing what they always do: trying to chatterspeak the courts into adopting their absurd illogic.

It doesn’t even hold up to casual analysis.

Which means it sure as hell shouldn’t hold up to rational legal analysis.

But of course we know they would throw THAT out as well in their return to Barbarism.

[Eddie01]

Dear whoeverthefkyouare,

“we have way too many “Giant Sixth Grade Brains in the USSC and Legislative Branches of Gov’mint”

There is a “deep state” who runs America.

We didn’t vote for them.

They took power through threat of prosecution.

You tell me. What happens next?

[MortMan]

SCOTUS rules that DAPA - the same program, but for the parents - was unconstitutional.

DACA has never been tested for constitutionality at SCOTUS.