Supreme Court Appears Likely to Approve Trump's Effort to Rescind DACA

the Federalist Papers ^ | 11/12/2019 | the Federalist Papers

[Fai Mao]

Winning

[Jeff Chandler]

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor demanded that U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case for the administration, identify whether the administration considered all the harm that ending the program would do, or if it was just a “choice to destroy lives.”

Idiot.

[DeweyCA]

The liberal judges think that it is unlawful for Trump to use an Executive Order to rescind an unlawful Executive Order by Obama. Yep, that is the reasoning of the self-proclaimed “wise Latina.” Liberals simply do not care about the rule of law. They care only about how they can manipulate their “living Constitution” to meet their policy goals. Disgusting!

[Yogafist]

How can they not? One president cannot write an executive order, or memo, or whatever it was, that another president cannot rewrite or undo. That’s not the way laws are made in our system of government, and if the bleeding hearts have a problem with the hardship it will cause, they should take that up with the Democrats.

[kiryandil]

The liberal judges think that it is unlawful for Trump to use an Executive Order to rescind an unlawful Executive Order by Obama.

DACA was a memorandum written by President Janet Napolitano.

[zeestephen]

Trump does not need to “rescind” DACA.

The “D” in DACA stands for “Deferred Prosecution.”

Three years ago, Trump could have written an Executive Order to the Secretary of Homeland Security and ordered him to remove all persons illegally present in the USA.

Trump’s authority derives from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - and the 70 years of settled law that have followed it.

By the way - for those who have not heard, Trump just appointed Chad Wolf as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

Among Chad Wolf’s immigration achievements - he was a registered lobbyist for H-1B visas from 2016-2017.

Winning On Immigration!

[Dark Knight]

The supreme court can choose to rule that an executive order can authorize an illegal act. Granting legal rights to people here against the law, working against the law, and staying against the law was the purpose of DACA. The votes of SCOTUS that give DACA the same weight as the immigration law that was part of a deal democrats chose to decline instead wanting a media and court press to “legalize” shows the rule of law is not important at the SCOTUS level. I have always wondered how someone can swear by a constitution, if it is obvious they do not care about it.

DK

[zeestephen]

Re: “DACA was a memorandum written by President Janet Napolitano.”

It was written at the direction of Barack Obama.

An E.O. written by the Secretary of any Cabinet department carries the exact same legal weight as an E.O. written by the President.

A Presidential E.O. has more prestige. I will guess that Obama was uncertain about the public response to DACA, so he made Janet sign the E.O.

[Syncro]

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor demanded that U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case for the administration, identify whether the administration considered all the harm that ending the program would do, or if it was just a “choice to destroy lives.” ****

Does a Supreme Court Justice really talk like that?

Yeah, Trump became president to destroy lives.

What a ridiculous statement to make!

[kiryandil]

It is an executive memorandum, NOT an executive order.

[zeestephen]

Re: “It is an executive memorandum, NOT an executive order.”

I defer to your knowledge.

Bottom Line....

A Secretary’s Executive Memorandum has the exact same legal weight as a President’s Executive Order.

Both of them create or interpret the enforcement policy for statutes passed by Congress.

[kiryandil]

You obviously have zero interest in learning the difference, NeverTrump.

[kiryandil]

NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump

[kiryandil]

You're pretty good.

You slipped the FR NeverTrump net in 2016, but now that I go back and look at it, you've been stealth NeverTrump the whole time.

Pity that you decided to push the phony "executive order" Narrative at this time...

[zeestephen]

Re: “You obviously have zero interest in learning the difference [between Executive Memo and Executive Order].”

They both carry the weight of law, and they are both reviewable by the Supreme Court.

For this thread, that’s all anyone needs to know.

If you would like to write a compare-contrast essay on the subject, I look forward to reading it.

[jmacusa]

YES! Kick these free loaders out. American kids should be first and fore most in line for tuition aid. Not the adult offspring of border jumping criminals.

[zeestephen]

Re: Never Trump

I voted for Trump in 2016, and I will vote to reelect Trump in 2020, but only because Trump is the most Conservative candidate who has a chance to win the election.

Win or lose, Trump will be the last Republican President in American history.

Trump is a scam artist on the immigration issue.

If Conservatives don’t hold Trump’s feet to the political fire on immigration, who will?

[ETCM]

“arbitrary and capricious”

I expect Roberts to use this, just as he reasoned that Trump had the authority to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, but the administration needed to better explain to Roberts “why” and how they made decisions.

Same will likely be ruled here, that Trump has the authority to end DACA, but hasn’t given a good enough reasons. Apparently, Roberts has the authority to second guess all of Trump’s decisions.

[KavMan]

Someone needs to go whisper into Chief Justice John Roberts ear that once TRUMP gets Amy Coney Barrett on the Court, he could make a deal with Democrats to get rid of you & put in Merrick Garland if you continue to be a RINO