[Dahoser]

I agree. Its simply unimaginable that the USSC could do anything but throw out DACA without wrecking the rule of law completely.

We said the same about another ACA and the obviously compromised Chief Justice of the United States found a way to hang it on us forever instead.

[Magnum44]

Agree, but that was a very different and twisted argument. This is pretty clear cut constitutionally. No congressionally passed law. DACA already ruled unconstitutional by lower court. I see this more as an exercise in frustrating the POTUS but not one that can win in the end.

[Alberta's Child]

We said the same about another ACA and the obviously compromised Chief Justice of the United States found a way to hang it on us forever instead.

I detest the ACA but this is factually incorrect.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the ACA in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in its 2012 ruling. What it did was uphold the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress's power to impose taxes.

The ACA is far more vulnerable to constitutional challenges on the basis of its usurpation of state regulatory authority over the insurance industry. The only problem is that such a legal challenge would have to be initiated by: (1) state governments, and/or (2) insurance companies. But as far as I know, none of them have filed any such challenges. WHY NOT?