Supreme Court blocks Trump from ending DACA

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/daca-immigration-supreme-court/index.html

That's two decisions in the span of a few days that were tremendous blows against the Trump administration.

This decision specifically is really interesting because (and admittedly I still need to read the decision) it really affirms the limits of future administration to revoke executive orders.

 

Well that will certainly cut both ways if a current administration is allowed to bypass congress and create future law by executive order.

 

Not really, the decision is essentially saying one needs a rational argument to renege on a promise.

 

Hmmm I haven't seen it but couldn't the same be said on most executive orders? I mean the whole point is to bridge a gap between things and written law?

 

Perhaps then you should read the opinion. It clearly doesn't imply what you think it does. Because there actually isn't a legislative foundation for this, the court intervened suggesting congress should have a cure for it. But think about it this way. If the SCOTUS has actually arrived at the decision you marketed, it would mean that if say Trump were to issue 1000s of fiat orders the court has now ruled that those could not be undone by a future president, absent congressional input via legislation. I'm sure you're now super cool with this.. right?

 

Will Trump have accomplished a single significant thing during his term?

 

I guess I don't understand how an EO from one President cant be overturned by an EO from another President.

 

So again in the dark on the OP so you go to on of your 1000 bash trump slogans you use daily? Got any insight on the ruling?

 

That part about reneging on a promise is precisely one of the major issues of this case. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people altered their behavior and thereby potentially subjected themselves and their family to something really life altering (i.e. deportation) by publicly announcing themselves to the federal government in exchange for the promise that they would not be deported assuming they met and continued to meet certain conditions.

Trump's decision to completely and unilaterally revoke that promise really threatened to undermine the faith of those people and anyone in the future who would rely on such a promise by the executive branch. The Supreme Court reached the decision today that such a decision must meet a higher burden for making such a decision. Or rather, not to meet a higher burden, but that the Trump administration failed to meet the current burden (reasoned explanation).

See above.

 

The trouble with immigration law is that it is written so poorly and irrationally.

 

Which I cant understand how that's even constitutional. It effectively allows a sitting President to nullify their replacement. Pres Trump could slap in a number of EOs before leaving office that would be contrary to the objectives of the incoming occupant and they'd be forced to just deal with it? That reeks of serious complication.

 

At no point did I say or imply that was my understanding of this ruling.

I said that this decision "reaffirmed the limits" which means that they did not loosen the current limits. Any future administration will have very little problem crafting a reasonable explanation for why they need to revoke Trump's executive orders on things like the muslim ban or the executive order on forcing immigrant children into cages.

 

Well that's obviously and opinion on an opinion and means nothing. I'll wait until the other lawyers on the board actually read the ruling and fill us in.

 

Exactly and why the DACA Executive order was though even by Obama to be overturned. It was his way to get congress off their ass but of course they haven't done their duty. The truth is America needs direction and law moving forward but the cowards in Congress won't address it one way or another.

 

I think that's a decent moral objective but the damage done to the Presidency here cant be ignored and I'm not sure it was worth it. Also leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Was DACA ever constitutional? Does the President have the authority to manage immigration? Are now all EO's to be protected once enacted? The answers seem to be both yes and no. I think the SCOTUS failed here in a big way.

 

Well, he’s proving to be the most unfit potus in history.

 

Trump tweeted a photoshopped image during the eclipse where it was his face overtaking Obama's explicitly because he had revoked and modified so many of Obama's executive orders. Nearly all of those remain in effect. In fact, the ones that used the congressional vehicle (I forget the term at the moment) are now even stronger because it means that future administrations will need congressional approval to revoke those decisions.

This Supreme Court decision does not really add any additional burdens on future administrations to revoke the executive orders of previous administrations. It simply demands that abide by the current burdens, i.e. to rationally explain their justification.

In this instance, the Trump administration's justification - near as I can recall - was to basically say, "We determined that DACA was unconstitutional (even in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling) and thus we can revoke DACA."

 

Makes sense since you are on here everyday b*$ching and moaning daily about the things he's done.

 

First term impeachment stands out...

Somebody who follows him on Twitter, please let us know when he comes up with his inevitable ridiculous nickname for Johnny R..

 

If the sole purpose of your response to my explanation is to say that my opinion is worthless, then you can stop responding to my posts, I don't give a flying ****.

 

What promise did Trump make?

 

His greatest damage to the country are the sycophants he appointed to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh in particular appears to be a very shallow agenda driven partisan.

I don't even want to know what nuts he has appointed to the other courts.

 

No my post was to say it's your opinion and I'll wait til other lawyers give their opinion. Do you say that to judges to, that if they want to hear oppositions opinions then you don't give a "flying ****". Bet that doesn't work well.

 

Here's something I think needs to be kept in the back of everybody's mind.... It's hard to believe anybody who is serious about a 2nd term would behave the way he has, especially over the past 6 months.

SNiP
Trump doesn’t want to be seen as a “loser,” a label he detests, in the campaign against former Vice President Joe Biden. And some advisers believe Trump’s taste for battle will return in the fall, when the general election fight is more engaged.

But for now, they said, the president is acting trapped and defensive, and his self-destructive behavior has been so out of step for an incumbent in an election year that many advisers wonder if he is truly interested in serving a second term.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-trump-want-fight-second-121213984.html

He didn't expect to be here for a miserable first term.... why not cut your losses now, you LOSER!

 

Is Hillary a President?