Federal judge rules DACA must be restored in full

[djohn2oo8]

1025496530340311040

[boutons_deux]

outlaws Trash/JeBo/Miller simply won't obey the judge.

And what are the penalties for, in effect, disobeying the judge?

Pre-empting rulings like this is why the Repugs/oligarchy/Federalist Society are polluting the Federal judiciary with young, extreme right wing assholes, "politicians in robes"

[koriwhat]

lmao you must put this illegal bill back into action for all the illegals who have no actual rights but our far left ideology wants to grant them more rights than our citizens here. fuck all of yall!

[Chris]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/John_D._Bates_%282013%29.jpg/220px-John_D._Bates_%282013%29.jpg

[djohn2oo8]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/John_D._Bates_%282013%29.jpg/220px-John_D._Bates_%282013%29.jpg

Nominated by a Republican. Chris goes derp.

[AaronY]

Supreme court will overturn I'm sure. Maybe spurraider or someone who actually knows the law can comment

[spurraider21]

Supreme court will overturn I'm sure. Maybe spurraider or someone who actually knows the law can comment
i'd have to read the judge's written ruling (assuming there is one). news articles often do a poor job of going through this stuff.

[ducks]

in closing the brief, the judge said that at no point did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or constitutional authority" to end the program."

"Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge said.

What the hell??? That doesn't even make sense. I'm soooooooo tired of this judicial activists. DACA is unconstitutional on its face...Trump should simply issue an Executive Order to undo OdumbAss' original EO...(sigh)...

[Chris]

1025510520571326466
1025511581054988289
1025513155865141248

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao meltdown

[spurraider21]

:lmao everything a conspiracy

[Chris]

:lmao using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with

[spurraider21]

:lmao using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with
you tried this in the novichok thread. we went through it step by step and showed your theory was indeed a conspiracy theory.

should we walk through the same process here as well?

conspiracy theory: the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

your theory: the judge's ruling (an important political event) is the product of a secret plot that is largely unknown to the public (he's secretly in cahoots with obama and the democrats and needed trump to lose!)

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao using the word conspiracy to write things off that you don't agree with
The irony is astounding in this post

[rmt]

in closing the brief, the judge said that at no point did the court contend that the DHS didn't have "the statutory or constitutional authority" to end the program."

"Rather, the Court simply holds that if DHS wishes to rescind the program - or to take any other action, for that matter - it must give a rational explanation for its decision," the judge said.

What the hell??? That doesn't even make sense. I'm soooooooo tired of this judicial activists. DACA is unconstitutional on its face...Trump should simply issue an Executive Order to undo OdumbAss' original EO...(sigh)...

So DHS has statutory/constitutional authority to end the program but they have to EXPLAIN why they are following the law/constitution - he makes a lot of sense (sarcasm).

[spurraider21]

full order is here. reading through it now

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4636075/DACA-Judgebates-20180803.pdf

[spurraider21]

some key points from the order, imo


although the Supreme Court has held enforcementdecisions to be “presumptively unreviewable,” NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 234 (citing Heckler v.Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832–33 (1985)), the D.C. Circuit recognizes an exception for “generalenforcement polic[ies]” that “rel[y] solely on the agency’s view of what the law requires,”...

The Court held that DACA’s rescission was reviewable under this exception because it was“predicated on DHS’s legal determination that the program was invalid when it was adopted.”

:lol so basically if the trump government didnt come out and say "we have to cancel DACA strictly because DACA was illegal to begin with" then they probably could have escaped review.


According to the government, this rationale renders DACA’srescission unreviewable because it “cannot be meaningfully distinguished from other ‘bona fidediscretionary reasons’ that this Court found acceptable” in its prior opinion, “such as an agency’sfear that ‘negative publicity . . . would undermine the policy’s effectiveness.’” Gov’t’s Mot. at 7(quoting NAACP, 298 F. Supp. 3d at 233).

But as the Court’s opinion explained in the very next paragraph, it is difficult to concludethat such policy assertions are “bona fide” when they are accompanied by an assertion from theCase 1:17-cv-02325-JDB Document 78 Filed 08/03/18 Page 15 of 2516agency that its longstanding policy is “unlawful.”
same thing as above


the Secretary claims that even though DACA “on its face . . . allow[s] for individualconsiderations,” id., it should nonetheless be rescinded because its programmatic nature somehowmisleads those charged with its implementation into applying it categorically.

As an initial matter, this rationale strikes the Court as specious. It would be one thing fora challenger other than DHS to claim that although DACA calls for case-by-case discretion intheory, its application is categorical in practice. Indeed, this argument was made by the plaintiffsin the Texas litigation. See Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 171–72 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d byan equally divided Court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (mem). But when made by the agency itself, theargument becomes a non sequitur: if Secretary Nielsen believes that DACA is not beingimplemented as written, she can simply direct her employees to implement it properly. An agencyhead cannot point to her own employees’ misapplication of a program as a reason for its invalidity
:lmao are you kidding me? so the DHS argued that the DHS is misapplying daca, and therefore DACA needs to be rescinded? :lol wtf?

relating to that argument...


Specious though it may be, this rationale nonetheless presents as the sort of policyconsideration that, when offered as an independent reason for adopting a general enforcementpolicy, might foreclose judicial review. When viewed in the broader context of this litigation,however, this rationale reveals itself to be yet another attempt to disguise an objection to DACA’slegality as a policy justification for its rescission.

so basically, even though the court says that argument makes no logical sense, they're saying that in a vacuum, that argument probably would have been enough to avoid judicial review, but its clearly part of DHS's overarching argument that DACA is inherently illegal, which again, is why this decision is subject to review

[spurraider21]

so from what i gathered, yesterday's order seems correct... that there isn't a good legal reason to force the federal court to reconsider its original finding.

but i haven't rad the original order/decision which i'm still skeptical of. it could still be overturned on appeal. but yesterday's ruling wasn't an appeal, it was a motion for reconsideration (asking the same judge to reconsider his own ruling... and you need very specific legal grounds to allow for that)

[Chris]

1026547882759843840

[spurraider21]

if they didnt play the "DACA was illegal to begin with" card then they could have just rescinded it. the fact that they keep banging that drum is the only reason the courts are able to block its rescission :lol

[AaronY]

if they didnt play the "DACA was illegal to begin with" card then they could have just rescinded it. the fact that they keep banging that drum is the only reason the courts are able to block its rescission :lol
So what happens now you think? Also the court that its going to be appealed to is that one conservative or what and will it just end up in the supreme court?

[spurraider21]

So what happens now you think? Also the court that its going to be appealed to is that one conservative or what and will it just end up in the supreme court?
it will definitely be appealed.

again, i haven't read the full order regarding the initial ruling... which is probably much more useful at this point. last week's ruling was much more of a legal/procedural issue than anything really on the merits regarding whether the DACA rescission was invalid

[spurraider21]

i mean, in one of my posts above, the court specifically pointed out that typically, these sorts of decisions are not subject to review... but there is an exception where the policy seems to rely solely on the agency's interpretation of the legality of it.

so when DHS says "we need to repeal DACA because we believe DACA is illegal"... all they're doing is opening the door for the court to weigh in and say "nah, it actually wasnt illegal, so your rationale doesn't fly." the original ruling (which to date I have not read) is where the court ultimately made that call

instead, they should have just said "we are repealing DACA because it is bad policy for x, y, z." once they started opining about the legality of it, they rolled out the red carpet for the courts to make that determination. last week's ruling merely confirmed that the court had the ability to weigh in in the first place

[spurraider21]

here's the original ruling. much longer. will read on spare time

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4446318/Microsoft-Princeton-Daca-20180424.pdf

but this is where the court ruled that the government's claim that "DACA must be rescinded because it is illegal" fails because they didnt actually demonstrate how it is illegal

[ducks]

they ruled a polically rulling for the democrat base knowing they do not have a leg to stand on by the law
I hate judges on both politically parties that do that

[spurraider21]

original ruling from april


1. The Department’s Conclusion that DACA Was Unlawful

Plaintiffs first attack DHS’s reliance on DACA’s purported unlawfulness as a reason torescind DACA. They argue both that DHS failed adequately to explain its legal conclusion, seePrinceton MSJ at 11–17, and that even if DHS’s explanation were adequate, its conclusion waserroneous, see id. at 17–27. The Court agrees that DHS’s decision was inadequately explained, and hence it need not address the alternative argument that DHS’s conclusion was substantivelyincorrect
so basically the court ruled that DHS gave a shitty explanation as to how they came to the determination the DACA was illegal


“One of the basic procedural requirements of administrative rulemaking is that an agencymust give adequate reasons for its decisions.” Encino Motorcars, 136 S. Ct. at 2125. Thus, whenan agency reverses a prior decision, it must “provide a reasoned explanation for the change.” Id.That explanation need not be “more detailed . . . than what would suffice for a new policy createdon a blank slate,” but it must address the “facts and circumstances that underlay or wereengendered by the prior policy,” including any “serious reliance interests.” Id. at 2125–26 (quotingFCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)); see also id. at 2126 (“[A]n‘unexplained inconsistency’ in agency policy ‘is a reason for holding an interpretation to be anarbitrary and capricious change . . . .’” (alterations and citation omitted)).

[spurraider21]

the government's entire explanation of why they thought DACA was illegal seemed to be:

- DAPA was illegal, so therefore DACA must also be illegal. the court rightfully brushed that aside because DAPA and DACA are "incongruous"
- DACA is unconstitutional because the AG has the duty to implement laws of congress, and made no attempt to explain the supposed breach of duty that has resulted due to DACA

finally, the court held that these explanations paled in comparison to the reliance interest of DACA beneficiaries... "many ofwhom had structured their education, employment, and other life activities on the assumption thatthey would be able to renew their DACA benefits.24 The Supreme Court has set aside changes inagency policy for failure to consider reliance interests that pale in comparison to the ones at stakehere"

[boutons_deux]

New polling shows strong support for DACA, TPS recipients in key 2020 states (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/29/1861166/-New-polling-shows-strong-support-for-DACA-TPS-recipients-in-key-2020-states)

“found that 74% of Colorado voters,

71% of Pennsylvania voters, and

78% percent of Michigan voters,

believe that the United States government should offer a path to citizenship for Dreamers and TPS-holders.”
In Michigan, support stretches across party lines,

with 95% of Democrats,

80% of independents, and

56% of Republicans

supporting protections for undocumented immigrant youth and TPS holders

American voters have shown overwhelming support for legalizing DACA recipients. In one 2017 poll, (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/9/25/1701324/-New-poll-86-percent-of-Americans-support-immigrant-youth-62-percent-oppose-Trump-s-racist-wall) nearly 90% of respondents across party lines said that “they support a right to residency for undocumented immigrant

(https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/29/1861166/-New-polling-shows-strong-support-for-DACA-TPS-recipients-in-key-2020-states?detail=emaildkre) “Trump has made crystal clear that his 2020 strategy is all about immigration,

but voters want solutions and not carnival barking and policies that separate families,”

(https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/29/1861166/-New-polling-shows-strong-support-for-DACA-TPS-recipients-in-key-2020-states?detail=emaildkre)https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/29/1861166/-New-polling-shows-strong-support-for-DACA-TPS-recipients-in-key-2020-states?detail=emaildkre

[boutons_deux]

GOP super-lawyer Ted Olson facing off against Trump lawyers at the Supreme Court

Olson, who served as solicitor general under George W. Bush,

is a notorious heavy-hitting lawyer for right-wing causes.

He has broadly argued in court for expansion of executive power when Republicans hold the White House, and

delivered the winning arguments for GOP plaintiffs

in cases like Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

But on the issue of DACA, Olson is representing the “Dreamers.”


“Executive power is important, and we respect it,” said Olson.

“But it has to be done the right way.

It has to be done in an orderly fashion

so that citizens can understand what is being done and

people whose lives have depended on a governmental policy aren’t swept away arbitrarily and capriciously.

And that’s what’s happened here.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/gop-super-lawyer-ted-olson-facing-off-against-trump-lawyers-at-the-supreme-court-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29 (https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/gop-super-lawyer-ted-olson-facing-off-against-trump-lawyers-at-the-supreme-court-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29)

[boutons_deux]

After the SCOTUS hearing,

observers think DACA is fucked,

since political hack / Catholic asshole CJ Roberts, "swing vote",

appears to agree with Trash/Miller/etc White Male KKK Nationalists Racists

5-4 next year, very probably the Dreamers will get nightmare-d.

Of course, SCOTUS will have no responsibility for deporting 900K employed, educated Dreamers,

while 10Ms of low-ed, low-wage, "public charge" "white trash" of the Repug cult base stays.

[koriwhat]

After the SCOTUS hearing,

observers think DACA is fucked

lets hope :tu

time to make those dreams a reality for our own citizens instead!

[Winehole23]

Supreme Court blocks DACA rescission.

Link to decision @ the tweet.

1273617048598437888

[boutons_deux]

Trash kicked in his apocryphal balls again

fake-Christin Devos was discrimating against DACA by denying them pandemic support, and she got bitch slapped, too.

HUGE, SICKENING WINS for Trash/Devos/Stephen Himmler Miller

[Reck]

Rofl back to back bitch slaps in less than 24 hours.

[ElNono]

Supreme Court blocks DACA rescission.

Link to decision @ the tweet.

1273617048598437888

Oh wow, totally unexpected. Then again, Congress is in no shape to pass immigration reform now, and this removes a bargaining point from Trump. Good news all around.

[Reck]

1273634152433188865

:cry

[Will Hunting]

Roberts is pretty fair on overhyped wedge issues like LGBTQ shit or immigration, but he’s as bad as Alito or Thomas on the rulings that have widespread ramifications.

[spurraider21]

God King trump thinks is all about him

[boutons_deux]

Roberts said DHS/Trash killed DACA wrongly by violating regulations, not that killing DACA was wrong.

Message: come back and kill DACA by following the regulations.

Does Trash and his racist hatchet mob have enough time to kill DACA by the rules?

I read that some in Congress were expecting DACA to ruled dead, and were planning to revive it legislatively,

but I doubt the Repug party of racists would have revived DACA on Obama's original terms, or

even revived it all, since reviving would have inflamed the Repug racist cult mob.

[Will Hunting]

Roberts said DHS/Trash killed DACA wrongly by violating regulations, not that killing DACA was wrong.

Message: come back and kill DACA by following the regulations.

Does Trash and his hatch mob have enough time to kill DACA by the rules?

I read that some in Congress were expecting DACA to ruled dead, and were planning to revive it legislatively, but I doubt the Repug party of racists would have revived DACA on Obama's original terms, or even revived it all, since reviving would have inflamed the Repug racist cult mob.


I don’t see what your complaint is. Roberts’ job isn’t to decide on whether or not it’s wrong but rather whether or not it’s constitutional, and I don’t see an argument as to how killing DACA would be unconstitutional if Trump had gotten legislative support for it and followed the rules. The only issue before SCOTUS was whether or not Trump followed proper procedure in killing DACA, Roberts’ opinion wasn’t supposed to address the morality of killing DACA.

[spurraider21]

looking back earlier in the thread, all they had to do was give a good faith reason for their DACA repeal other than "we have to repeal it because it is illegal" which was just an effort to pander to their base tbh :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, let's not conclude this is some huge defection on Roberts' part. This is about Trump's doing pretty much everything wrong.

1273635374829633541

:lol Trump is a terrible president

[spurraider21]

well you would imagine its the egregious/improper ones that WOULD get challenged more often, so its not entirely surprising he'd have a losing record. kinda like how prosecutors win most of their cases because they can hand pick which cases they want to fight

to be fair, i have no clue how this compares to other administrations

[Reck]

Yeah, let's not conclude this is some huge defection on Roberts' part. This is about Trump's doing pretty much everything wrong.

1273635374829633541

:lol Trump is a terrible president

:lmao

I knew he loses more than wins but holy shit.

[Will Hunting]

Yeah, let's not conclude this is some huge defection on Roberts' part. This is about Trump's doing pretty much everything wrong.

1273635374829633541

:lol Trump is a terrible president
Yep.

SCOTUS is only going to go so far ruling in Trump’s favor on executive power issues, they know the next president of this country will likely be a Democrat (whether in 2020 or 2024) and they don’t want to set a precedent.

The only real difference between Roberts and the other conservatives is that he has at least some integrity as a Supreme Court justice and isn’t a partisan hack who’s going to indiscriminately rule in favor of conservative positions every time. If there’s even a hint of constitutional justification Roberts will be aligned with the conservatives, Trump is just really shitty at finding constitutional justification :lol

[spurraider21]

Yep.

SCOTUS is only going to go so far ruling in Trump’s favor on executive power issues, they know the next president of this country will likely be a Democrat (whether in 2020 or 2024) and they don’t want to set a precedent.
so your theory is that the liberal wing of the supreme court did this just to hold back a hypothetical future dem president

[Will Hunting]

so your theory is that the liberal wing of the supreme court did this just to hold back a hypothetical future dem president
Na maybe I wasn’t clear, that’s why Roberts did it.

[boutons_deux]

Brett Kavanaugh walloped by John Roberts in ruling on Trump immigration policy

https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/pjimage-2020-06-18T105435.904.jpg

“Justice Kavanaugh asserts that this ‘foundational principle of administrative law’ … actually limits only what lawyers may argue, not what agencies may do,” Roberts wrote in his decision.

“While it is true that the Court has often rejected justifications belatedly advanced by advocates,

we refer to this as a prohibition on post hoc rationalizations, not advocate rationalizations,

because the problem is the timing, not the speaker.”

“The functional reasons for requiring contemporaneous explanations apply with equal force regardless whether post hoc justifications are raised in court by those appearing on behalf of the agency or by agency officials themselves,”

“Justice Kavanaugh further argues that the contemporaneous explanation requirement applies only to agency adjudications, not rulemakings,” Roberts wrote.

“But he cites no authority limiting this basic principle —

which the Court regularly articulates in the context of rulemakings — to adjudications.

The Government does not even raise this unheralded argument.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/brett-kavanaugh-walloped-by-john-roberts-in-ruling-on-trump-immigration-policy/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=4809

ouch! :lol

[spurraider21]

Na maybe I wasn’t clear, that’s why Roberts did it.
ah. wonder why thomas/alito/kavanaugh/gorsuch werent in on this master plan

[Will Hunting]

ah. wonder why thomas/alito/kavanaugh/gorsuch werent in on this master plan
There have been plenty of other executive power related rulings where one of them was. I’m also not sure why you think it’s some kind of conspiracy or what the point you’re trying to make is.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Roberts is a cancerous piece of shit, twice shocking the country by screwing over the party that nominated/confirmed him, in a major case in an election year.

[boutons_deux]

1273623457457209344



1273621717383069700

[boutons_deux]

...

[spurraider21]

There have been plenty of other executive power related rulings where one of them was. I’m also not sure why you think it’s some kind of conspiracy or what the point you’re trying to make is.
im not buying the ulterior motive

[boutons_deux]

Trump tweeted after the ruling that it was all due to the fact that the High Court doesn’t “like” him. :lol

“It’s not about whether the Court likes the president,” said Pelosi.

“He should know that.

It’s whether the Court likes the Constitution of the United States.

And with the LGBTQ ruling the other day, and

now with the DACA, clearly this is a victory for the American people.

And it isn’t about — it isn’t personal about the president.

It’s constitutional about our country.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/pelosi-to-trump-it-doesnt-matter-if-the-court-likes-you-its-about-if-they-like-the-constitution/

[ElNono]

Yeah, let's not conclude this is some huge defection on Roberts' part. This is about Trump's doing pretty much everything wrong.

1273635374829633541

:lol Trump is a terrible president

:lol tired of losing

[ElNono]

Roberts is a cancerous piece of shit, twice shocking the country by screwing over the party that nominated/confirmed him, in a major case in an election year.

lol u mad

[TheGreatYacht]

Going against DACA would piss off the Jewish community. Conservative Christian Zionist judges cannot allow that.

[Winehole23]

looking back earlier in the thread, all they had to do was give a good faith reason for their DACA repeal other than "we have to repeal it because it is illegal" which was just an effort to pander to their base tbh :lolThe adminstrative and legal incompetence of the gang that wants to dismantle the administrative state seems to be interfering with the destruction of the same.

[Reck]

:lol He said he will try to end it again.

I assume he thinks he’ll win re-election because this is going to take years since they have to draw it up from page 1. What a maniac. Winning the Hispanic vote by mass deporting the ones actually contributing to this country.

Such a winning strategy.

[spurraider21]

The adminstrative and legal incompetence of the gang that wants to dismantle the administrative state seems to be interfering with the destruction of the same.
derp friendly version:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SJSBHip780

[Spurtacular]

Roberts is a cancerous piece of shit

Bush f'd over Repubs. He was basically a Democrat.

[spurraider21]

Bush f'd over Repubs. He was basically a Democrat.
oh yeah. starting wars, cutting taxes, deregulation... totally progressive

[Spurtacular]

oh yeah. starting wars, cutting taxes, deregulation... totally progressive

Dems voted for the wars.
Dems a shit load of spending.
Deregulation :lol

Bush did nothing for conservatives. Nothing.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Bush f'd over Repubs. He was basically a Democrat.
I hope Roberts, Breyer, and RBG all get covid and die this summer

Keep the bull dyke and the fat Messican just so the libs can keep their affirmative action crap and not bitch.

[Millennial_Messiah]

oh yeah. starting wars, cutting taxes, deregulation... totally progressive

Hillary teamed with France to kill Ghadafi (and Chris Stevens and Co.) in Libya

Obama backed the "Arab (jihadist) Spring"

Slick Willy gave billions of US taxpayer dollars to save Muslims from Milosevic in Serbia in 1999

Lyndon Johnson started the Vietnam War

.... but the dumbocrats aren't war hawks. :lol

[Spurtacular]

I hope Roberts, Breyer, and RBG all get covid and die this summer

Keep the bull dyke and the fat Messican just so the libs can keep their affirmative action crap and not bitch.

Chump Lite is mad I noted that Supreme Court appointees don't have lifetime guarantees.
The problem is that we act like they do.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Chump Lite is mad I noted that Supreme Court appointees don't have lifetime guarantees.
The problem is that we act like they do.

Well it does say in article 3 that they are appointed for life

they have to do something obscene, disorderly conduct etc to get involuntarily terminated from their position. I was watching Tucker last night and he asked about it too and Ted Cruz told him that even with a GOP Senate, House and WH and SCOTUS majority they can't even demote Roberts from chief justice to associate justice without a viable grievance against Roberts. Tucker seemed bummed out, but, it's the way it is, we can't just kick SCOTUS judges out because they made a decision you or I or Trump or Tucker or Ted Cruz doesn't like. It would also set a bad precedent and a slippery slope.

[Spurtacular]

Well it does say in article 3 that they are appointed for life


You need to read that again. There is no such thing in the Constitution.

[Spurtacular]

they have to do something obscene, disorderly conduct etc to get involuntarily terminated from their position. I was watching Tucker last night and he asked about it too and Ted Cruz told him that even with a GOP Senate, House and WH and SCOTUS majority they can't even demote Roberts from chief justice to associate justice without a viable grievance against Roberts.

Lyin' Ted.

The truth is government can, but Republicrats have no interest in overhauling the system.
Though if you want to make a case he's telling the truth, he's technically right. It is the president empowered to determine appointment lengths.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Lyin' Ted.

The truth is government can, but Republicrats have no interest in overhauling the system.
Though if you want to make a case he's telling the truth, he's technically right. It is the president empowered to determine appointment lengths.

and if they did, it would set a bad precedent, in fact one that none other than Stephen Breyer himself has long advocated for... an "adaptable" constitution... Scalia fought him hard over that.

all that said, I think if it was breyer dead instead of Scalia in 2016, I think Mitch doesn't go out of his way to block Merrick Garland.

[boutons_deux]

It's been 100 days since the Supreme Court ruled on DACA.

Trump is still defying the order

when it comes to honoring the rulings made by that same Supreme Court, the Trump administration is in no rush.

for 100 days, officials have defied the Supreme Court’s ruling and refused to reopen the program to new applicants.

the Trump administration has in fact been defying not one, but two court orders (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/17/1961486/-Federal-court-orders-Trump-admin-to-accept-new-DACA-applications-following-Supreme-Court-ruling) to fully reopen the DACA program to new applicants, following a Maryland judge’s ruling (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/7/17/1961486/-Federal-court-orders-Trump-admin-to-accept-new-DACA-applications-following-Supreme-Court-ruling) a month after that historic Supreme Court decision.

Unlawful Chad has since been sued (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/9/4/1974912/--Chad-Wolf-has-no-legal-authority-Unlawfully-appointed-DHS-secretary-sued-over-DACA-slashes) for his unlawful memo

that made the Supreme Court defiance official by rejecting new applications and slashing current protections in half.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1980679

No Law Is Above the Man

Repugs are proving they can break the law, ignore the courts, and get away with no punishment,

while packing the Federal judiciary with so-called judges who won't even rule against them.

[Winehole23]

Bypassing Senate confirmation turns out to have been inexpedient; Wolf's new DACA rules are invalid because Wolf wasn't legally hired and had no power to issue them.

Oopsie!

1327732852952281088

[Winehole23]

What an apt bookend. DHS is ordered to accept new requests for deferral.

1334985425300185088

[spurraider21]

its hilarious how much the anti-obama rhetoric actually fucked trump in his attempt to undo DACA

typically, anything done by EO can just as easily be undone by EO. and usually, the courts have no room to weigh-in on political questions regarding whether or not an EO is good or bad, or being done for valid or invalid reasoning. with the ONE exception: if the reasoning stated by the executive branch is a purely legal one. and when trump tried undoing DACA, the EO stated that they had to undo DACA because DACA was illegal. and that gave the courts the right to weigh in, and completely fucked with the effort

pettiness and incompetence, the hallmarks of this presidency

[boutons_deux]

I expect Chad Wolf/DHS to disobey this order, and at very least go slow while DACA people are deported.

Similar happened recently, DHS/CBP had a plane loaded with deportees, judges rules against, DHS sent the plane anyway. nobody punished.