A well written article would have discussed the Mr. Liptak's 2016 NYT article which suggests a certainty that when DACA goes in front of the Supreme Court it will rule that Obama overstepped his authority. Liptak's article discussing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program resulted with a Supreme Court 4-4 tie, notably with swing Justice Kennedy ruling Obama had broken the law.
One has to ask why a NYT writer and the editors don't reference his previous article which is very relevant to the subject.
Please, NYT writers and editors, reference the relevant articles in your own newspaper!
"“the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”"
They are illegally living here and do have a legal tie to live in their country of citizenship. They are taking jobs and university spots from those who are living here legally including those who followed the laws of immigration in this country as well as citizens.
Liptak & Shear: Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/24/us/supreme-court-immigration-obama-dapa.html
5
This will not end up well for DACA individuals since trump (and by trump I mean his extreme right masters) has been stacking the federal benches with conservative federal justices who will eventually end up ruling in the extreme right’s favor and allowing the conservative SCOTUS to easily uphold a conservative federal appellate court ruling that DACA is unconstitutional. It really does not matter if it’s 2020 when it happens. These are all political chess moves that have been set in motion to make the country in the hard-right image. These conservative don’t care about trump or him being re-elected come 2020 when they will have a vastly conservative judicial system to rule in their favor regardless if a liberal president is elected. The sad thing is that the vast majority of the people commenting who are happy about the court not hearing this issue is that they don’t see the political moves at work. The courts will ultimately have the final say in many matters and with the judicial system being filled with lifetime positions of conservative judges it really isn’t going to matter much which party holds congress or the presidency.
1
SCOTUS is now dominated by a bunch of dodering old men who no longer represent much of anything supported by the majority of people.
As and old white guy myself, I am nevertheless looking forward to the death rattles of hard-right conservatism in this country. It is long, long overdue.
16
The supreme court represents the Vatican and Israel because it is filled with people who respond to what the pope says and what the Jews say. It is a far cry from my youth, when the Baptists hated Catholics, but now are more than willing to let Catholics represent them on the Supreme Court.
Once again, Robert's playing the long game. Upholding the trans-gender ban but balancing it out with D.A.C.A. He's very sensitive to the 'toolness' of the conservative wing of the Court so he's hypocritically not going by the law but by popular opinion.
3
How come we haven't yet heard this so-called president complain about "his" Supreme Court deciding NOT to "fix" what Trump declared a liberal ruling by the liberalest liberal court in the land?
In fact, he said the SCOTUS would "overwhelmingly" overturn the 9th district's decision.
I guess this gets no mention because it's NOT winning. Again.
13
This is what makes Trump's "offer" so ridiculously hollow. The Dreamers will be safe until just before the 2020 elections given the court cycle. And then we hope we will not have an insane person in the White House. So Trump's promise of 3 years when he won't torture the DACA young people is simply empty froo-froo. Anyone who would buy this is truly an idiot.
But even so, Ann Coulter objected. Who elected her Queen?
13
Ann Coulter and Stephen Miller must be livid.
8
At least this is a favourable action of two today. The Dreamers deserve to stay.
9
Good, I say let the voters decide. I want the 2020 platform to reflect the Democrats fight for DACA, open borders and abolishing ICE.
Let Pelosi and Schumer lead the party into another streak of failure. The only thing that would make this worse would be Hillaty running again and having the primary rigged again.
8
I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I figure this means that no matter what Trump does, it can still be found unconstitutional when the SCOTUS does take it up.
5
It is simply absurd that one President cannot revoke executive actions taken by a predecessor.
If this case ever reaches the Supreme Court, the Court will need to deal with that core issue, and it is beyond belief that it could come up with some kind of rational legal doctrine to allow one executive (Obama) not only to take an executive action (which, in Obama's DACA case, might arguably have been within the powers delegated to him by Congressional statute) but also to have his action somehow to become irreversible by a subsequent executive.
But, meantime, of course, the Court can slow-walk it, as it often does on politically controversial matters.
Nonetheless, Trump and "legal advisors" such as Rudi Giuliani (who should have known better) made a hash of what should have been a strong case with slip-shod procedures to revoke DACA -- not to mention Twitter broadsides on the Judiciary. Jeff Sessions probably also knew better, but his instincts probably got overrun by Trump and the semi-senile Giuliani.
Judges love orderly procedures and decorum -- often to an an excessive fault. Nonetheless, it is part of their role in government to try to maintain orderly procedure and decorum.
Worse, Trump has now injected DACA into his ill-thought-out mish-mash of government shutdown and border wall funding.
He himself has now said it is a political matter, and that is all the Court needs to justify ducking the underlying merits -- at least until it becomes clear what Congress will do.
9
The saying “don’t count your chickens before they hatch” comes to mind. Looks like the president became a little too confident in his Supreme Court.
8
So, now the extension of DACA has been accomplished through the courts - farewell, Trump leverage... we're back to where we started, with only 800,000 hostages.
20
Trump's DACA proposal was trash to begin with. It was a three-year punt, perhaps the longest punt in NFL history.
It provided nothing for nothing and the funniest thing is that Coulter still saw it as an affront. Not that I feel sorry for Donald, but he can't win even when he thinks he is going to win.
But honestly, this was already baked into the conversation days ago when it was clear even last Friday, that the Supreme Court wasn't interested in abating Trump's Government shut-down. That is McConnell's job after all.
Good for the Supremes and Roberts, for further isolating Trump and his walled in myopic focus.
19
Since Trump has taken so many hostages to ensure his dictatorship, nearly one million DACA kids, 800,000 federal workers and the millions reliant upon them, it’s now time to take him hostage in the House of Representatives. Nancy, do your job, and not one penny for the wall. Impeach the Wall!
18
I voted twice for President Obama but disagreed with him on this. President Obama and Democrats with the stroke of a pen implemented this program for illegal immigrants.
Yet ask them to mandate all law officers wear bodycams to protect the rights of citizens and they just spewed excuses. Ask for improvements on public transportation or drinking water and you get doublespeak. This is one of many reasons why after decades of voting for Democrats, Obama was the last one I voted for.
16
@Hellen
How is water quality, transportation, police abuse, etc. improved under the GOP? I am genuinely curious.
29
@Hellen
I'm sure the improvements of public transportation or reliable drinking water is one of Trumps biggest concerns. Lucky you Trump hasn't / hadn't / will not have any intention to spend billions of tax dollars to the wealth. You're so right. Trumps loves the average middle-class folks. Undoubtedly his first duty is and was to protect the civil rights of all Americans along with bodycam wearing police officers.
--
Sadly all that happens not in our known universe.
--
Somehow Trump changed in your universe his role with Bernie Sanders. Impressive.
7
@Hellen....If you are opposed to DACA that means that you believe a two year old child should be held accountable for a crime committed by their parents. What kind of person believes that? DACA is a moral imperative,,,,but not everyone holds moral values.
20
The emperor has not had clothes from the beginning.
Now the entire world sees him naked.
17
Did Donald Trump's grandfather immigrate here legally? If not, then I say, "Send all of the Trumps back to Germany, and do it now!"
17
@LCG
Please don't :-)
We're very happy that Trump is your lovely hobby.
9
@LCG
Answer: yes, they did.
2
@Will Workman
Thanks for the clarification.
Lucky us.
--
Btw, if you don't mind: We would like to invite all Dreamers to settle in Germany. We love well-educated students, nurses, engineers (...).
10
Trump is a lousy negotiator not only because his words cannot be taken in good faith but because his actions are continually proven to be in bad Faith.
He is such an awful president, leader, role model and person. Thoroughly corrupt, corrupted, and corrupting.
25
Trump does not have sense of empathy for another human being . He holds young DACA people and federal employees as hostages to negotiate for a wall for approval from his deplorables. The most uncaring US President in our countries history regardless of political party.
16
The Supreme Court said, “NO” to Trump’s hostage-taking strategy. A law is a law. Trump is a hack politician with no scruples.
10
@TMOH
a law is a law.. however, DACA is an administrative policy and not a law (it was not approved through Congress and signed by a president).
10
McConnell is a senile frightened and chicken when it comes to the monster he helped create in Trump. Now he is trying to back out and lay the blame on Trump and hey what? Pelosi?
But it is too late! If he doesn’t come down with a fair and honorable plan that liberates the 800,000 federal prisoners he encouraged Trump to take in the shutdown he will go down in history as the most unscrupulous criminal Republican Congressional leader in the history of America. In fact, he already is that!
15
Plain meanness...Nothing but meanness from a little, insecure man. He, and his minions, do not see the flesh and blood behind DACA. He, they, could care less... They see a negotiating tool, nothing else. He could care less about The Wall. It's his "cause celebre" because he stumbled onto it as such, adopted it and therefore he's stuck with it and he'll go down with it. Because he's basically a loser and once he loses big, it'll hit him between the eyes and he'll have to admit he's always been a loser.
17
Good decision.
5
How a suggestion: Democrats agree to pay for a wall if Trump replaces the Statue of Liberty with a glittering, gold clad Trump Towers How can you otherwise justify a symbol which literally proclaims, "Give us your tired..huddled masses yearning to be free" with a Symbol that proclaims, Stay Out?
2
@Dan Shiells How about, Democrats agree to pay for the wall if Trump agrees to resign.
4
So this amoral Russian stooge wants to trade the lives Dreamers for a useless and expensive wall to stoke his ego. Sounds like a hostage negotiation. Pathetic! The media has to ask him EVERY TIME he brings up the wall what happened to the promise (surely documented over 100 times) that Mexico would pay for the wall. If he is worried about keeping his promise, he needs to keep the one that provided the funding.
9
Obviously, the GOP has gotten their use out of Trump, and is now hanging him out to dry.
They have made gains being their wildest expectations through his weakness and compliance, and this is the beach he now dies on. Democrats won't play ball without good faith substantial gestures, and his base will crucify him for obliging.
3
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up this matter, which allows decisions of lower federal courts stopping Trump from destroying laws which prevented the deportation of the Dreamers to stand, releases Trump's DACA hostages. It means one group of Trump, McConnell, and G.O.P. hostages can no longer be used as bargaining chips to blackmail the country.
However, millions of Americans are still being held hostage by Trump, whether they be federal employees, or all those across the country who are going to be thrown out of their homes and into the street thanks to Trump's shutdown. As reported in the Times yesterday, they include those like a women who "after years of waiting, the federal government had approved a subsidy that allowed her to rent a three-bedroom house, bracketed by a…fence to keep her two autistic sons from bolting into traffic." As the women stated" "It's like my last stop; it's like my last chance--you know?"
A month after Trump's government shutdown began, its effects are destroying the most vulnerable Americans, hardworking Americans who "are one crisis away from the streets." If Trump forces this to go on for just a few weeks longer, funding for SNAP will be exhausted. It means millions will begin to starve to death.
All these Americans across the country, and so many more, are being held hostage by Trump because he deliberately reneged on his agreement to fund the government after Ann Coulter, and the white supremacists she speaks for, criticized him.
13
@Robert B, technically, DACA is not a law (which can only be passed by Congress). It was and is an Executive Order. That is the whole debate. Did DACA exceed what a President is allowed to do unilaterally? Even President Obama reportedly thought he was probably going too far. The Supreme Court may still eventually rule on this. There are multiple challenges in more than one court. The Supreme Court is only saying let the normal appeals process through all levels of courts continue before we may eventually decide this. They are not going to expedite it ahead of the normal judicial appeals process.
10
@GRH "technically, DACA is not a law (which can only be passed by Congress)."
Unfortunately, it's overly simplistic, and in fact, untrue. Executive orders are treated by the courts as laws. In arguing that President Obama believed he may have exceeded his authority you prove the very point you seek to rebut as legislation passed by Congress will also be stuck down by the courts if Congress exceeds its authority in passing it.
In the U.S an executive order is a directive issued by the President and has the full force of law. If it was not the case, there'd have been no need to repeatedly challenge Trump's travel bans in federal court on grounds that they violated the Establishment Clause and the INA. (In Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court upheld the third executive order).
Executive orders have both legal and constitutional foundations. For instance, Article Two of the Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to determine how to enforce all laws already in existence, and how to use the resources of the executive branch. A primary means of doing this is through executive orders. Further, the ability of the president to make executive orders is based on any and all express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President any degree of discretionary power, which is just about every Act of Congress. It is the same standard applied to legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies.
All are regarded as laws.
5
@Robert B @GRH, to fully clarify, you are incorrect. You are confused about our entire system of government when you write that "DACA is not a law (which can only be passed by Congress). It was and is an Executive Order."
As any first year law student will tell you, an executive order is a law. (Two executive orders comprised Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation). The question that bothered President Obama, who was an incredibly cautious legal scholar, (far too cautious many believed), was whether his executive DACA order raised a Separation of Powers question. Obama wondered if his "law" was one only Congress could pass, not whether he had the power to enact law. It still remains unknown under our system of Separation of Powers to what extent presidential power in making laws such as DACA extends, not whether the president has the power to create law.
Part of the confusion arises from Republicans feigning outrage and pretending, (just as they pretended to care about the deficit and then blowing it up every chance they got), that President Obama didn't have any power to issue executive orders which had the force of law. It was preposterous, as all executive orders have the force of law.
In enabling Trump, who is nothing but an autocrat with total contempt for the Constitution, including the Separation of Powers, Republicans pretend that presidential power to create executive orders is virtually unlimited, even when those orders explicitly violate the Constitution.
6
Using the lives of DACA children as bargaining chips is certainly terroristic. It's reasonable to infer that it is also driven by the sadistic impulses driving many administration policies.
On a larger scale, the government shutdown, with its effects disrupting or destroying the families of workers and contractors, is also terroristic and sadistic.
17
@Roger Their parents used them as a bargaining chip to stay in the country.
5
The Supreme Court wisely acted as they're supposed to . The Daca kids are no longer pawns in Trump's game . Time for him to eat some humble pie and negotiate with the Dems and end the disgraceful hostage situation with the Federal workers . His actions are unconstitutional , mean spirited and unpresidential . Mitch McConnell needs to retire and Republicans take up the mantle of bipartisanship and work with the Democrats . It is not about what party is in power but repairing the damage done by this administration and moving forward . Who needs a president who says ( I will proudly shut the government down ) to win approval of the talking heads of Ann Coulter , Sean Hannity , etc .and hurt people deliberately and then bombastically blame the democrats . I was taught to stand up to the bullies and that's exactly what Nancy Pelosi is doing.
12
The headline says the opposite of the story:
Headline: "The court took no action on the Trump administration’s plans to end the “dreamers” program, leaving it in place."
What the headline should say is "leaving THE STAY in place."
8
@Kevin Davis
Headline writers err toward the sensational, and what's more sensational than erring toward Trump-supporting claptrap.
2
@Able Nommer
Were this most other newspapers I'd agree but I believe this was just an unfortunate brain fade on the part of a sub-editor.
Kevin Davis is correct. I stumbled on the headline and had to parse the opening 'graf three times before I was certain I'd got it.
1
From what I recall, late last week Trump revealed that he’d make a “major” announcement regarding the shutdown, immigration, the wall, etc. on Saturday—and this revelation came out after the news came out that SCOTUS would probably not address his DACA case this term. So his “offer” of three years’ delay—which of course means that he believes he’ll be reelected in 2020, when he’d be able to resume systematic cruelty where DACA and TPS are concerned—seems to be his way of avoiding having to admit that SCOTUS wasn’t going to grant him his predicted great victory on DACA. His “offer” is meaningless, but apparently he believes that all of those paying attention are too stupid to recognize it.
5
Will Trump be remembered as The Immigration President?
Will Trump be remembered as The Wall President?
Will Trump be remembered as The Shutdown President?
Will Trump be Remembered as The Russian President?
Trump will be remembered as The Worst President Ever?
Had a majority in House and Senate and passed a meaningless tax cut bill.
Has the Supreme Court stacked in his favor and can't end the DACA program.
A group of independent historians ranked Trump at or near the bottom of all presidents after Trump's first year in office. Amazingly, he hasn't reached his bottom yet!
8
RE: "The court also questioned the cruelty...
Oh come ON. The cruelty was the best part! I mean why bother running and winning if you can't hurt people? Where's the fun in that? Remember, we elected Trump so he could hurt the people he is supposed to hurt! If you can't hurt kids and vulnerable people who are you supposed hurt?
7
@Marie
I like your thinking :-)
Indeed, you're right.
--
Well, I wonder if Trump could play one of his little games with the Koch brothers.
There would certainly be high ratings.
1
Legally, DACA's chances when it makes it to the Supreme Court on the merits are very low. It will almost certainly fail. However, Trump forced the Court's hand on the injunction. Trump couldn't keep his mouth shut and openly stated that he wanted to use the Court's decision as leverage in a purely political fight with Congress. The Supreme Court will not let itself be used like that.
12
@Nathan S
Best assessment I saw on this issue. DACA may not stand the "Separation of Powers" clause and SCOTUS would ask Congress to address it, if they want to.
2
Justice Roberts might have been the one that sided with common decency and humanity on the DACA question. What needs to be done as soon as political feasible is to take away the pocket veto of Supreme Court nominees by the Senate Majority leader by legislation. McConnell's pathetic and convoluted citing of historical precedent is actually upside down. If Mitch, under similar political situations in terms of the President's term and the make up of Congress historically only one other nominee was approved, then why didn't you just trust such an imagined historical precedent instead of taking the unconstitutional action of assuming de facto veto power over the nomination, something that no other Senate Majority leader has ever done.
3
The Supreme Court already knows that the Dreamers ARE indeed innocent Americans. Any other decision they might make is abhorrent and criminal. They must do the right thing in this instance or forever be dishonored in American history as 19th century slavers.
1
“the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties.”
Yep. That's sums it up. Forcing this issue doesn't even make economic sense (and we know money counts a LOT for Republicans). Having gone to the expense of educating all these young people, it would be incredibly stupid of the government to evict them from the US so that they can bring their training and expertise elsewhere.
4
This takes away Trump's leverage to force the Democrats to accept his proposal to end the #TrumpShutdown
Since the Supreme Court won't hear the DACA case until their next term, DACA recipients are guaranteed that they can't be deported before the middle of 2020, if the Court takes the case and decides in Trump's favor. Trump offered a three-year delay, but the Court has given Congress more than enough time to find a legislative solution.
Trump's offer is a nothingburger. Big surprise.
2
Poor Donald, just can't catch a break. Sending my thoughts and prayers.
Not.
7
Checks and balances are finally being engaged! Take that senate! Take that electoral college!! The house finally got that!!!
1
The Supreme Court described the 500-lb elephant in an oval room.
The CRUEL and shamelessly WASTEFUL apparatus seeks to: (1) exploit "weakness" of Democrats who would assist Childhood Arrivals into happy and productive lives and (2) enhance Trump/Kushner ventures.
Trump coins Dreamers as a bargaining chip that he will cash - as his transaction. And Trump seeks ALL Republican Immigration Reforms. HE ALREADY BY-PASSED CONGRESS by having Kirstjen Nielson install a procedural change to award this year's 85,000 pathways to citizenship to ONLY holders of masters degrees and higher.
Stephen Miller's "golden tickets" are going to India where the President's sons brokered most of Trump Organization's post-election success. Golden tickets are also going to another low-quota (Lottery System) country, China, where the Kushners and their investment facilitator, Qiaowai, exploit the EB-5 Program and "do trade" on Jared's name.
"The fees and terms of Qiaowai's arrangements with Kushner, KABR and USIF have not been disclosed."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1882EI
Trump does need Congress to increase golden tickets to 195,000 annually and to make Miller's "Merit" system into law. If successful and with his Wall prop, Trump will expand his Temp Foreign Worker Visas beyond 60,000 ADDITIONAL (2018). “I want people to come in. I want tremendous numbers of people to come in. And we’re going to have that big, beautiful door in the wall.” - 2 Nov 2016
1
"Illegitimate Supreme Court Doesn’t Act on Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case"
One mustn't forget to fully and correctly identify the institution!
1
Rendering a temporary offer of DACA protections vis a vis the wall worthless
2
Again, a feckless Congress leaves only the judiciary to impede, but not stop the reckless and unamerican behavior of the Trump administration. The damage to the country still continues.
1
Bravo, Supremes.
trump supporters: How long before FOX starts telling you that the Supreme Court is colluding with the deeeeep state to deny trump his totally justified agenda?
I mean, this was trump's plan, no? The SC would take up those DACA legal challenges, frat-boy Kavanaugh would vote safely, DACA would be nullified, and the Dems would have no choice but to cave, fund the wall and beg to keep even legal immigration. But that didn't happen.
Normal GOP/FOX talking points usually go directly to villifying the opposition, like the FBI, DOJ, Democrats, and now the Supreme Court, right?
It's back to the negotiating table, which should be a breeze for the art/deal master negotiator. All he has to do is cross his arms, do that Mussolini thing with his face, tell people what to do, and wait for someone to yell: "Cut!" and praise his manliness. I'm not kidding.
But his followers will dutifully repeat that if team trump makes a ridiculous offer, and the Dems turn it down because it's ridiculous, it's their fault and they are not playing fair. They point to the already existing, bipartisan offers they've already made, and trump screams that they are traitors. It's just too dumb, and again, I expect nothing but middle-school level reporting on it. Donnie vs Nancy! Oh, the insults! Ugh.
2
I am dissappointed that Congress has NOT further addressed this issue especially since the SCOTUS has declined to. Shame on Congress for failing to act. SCOTUS, please explain your inaction.
If Congress's laws make it illegal for a person to work in the U. S., illegal to reside in the U. S., and subject to deportation, how can a President change that. Quoting from the Constitution "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States".
Resolution of this issue clearly seems to be the responsibility of Congress. Congress's present resolution based on the laws Congress had made seems to be that DACA people can neither work or remain in the U. S. This clearly must be revisited by Congrss. Years of unenforcement has created a situation where the immigration laws are not enforced for DACA cases and many others. Congress must do its duty and update our laws to something we can proudly enforce. Leaving immigration the broken mess that it is not leadership, but cowardice. By doing nothing they support the existing laws by default.
We can get the immigrants we need and exclude those who do not belong if Congress rewrites our laws including funding for the tools to enforce border laws. Nothing will please everyone but we should be able to get a set of laws that most are comfortable with. We neither have a set of border laws we widely accept, nor robust enforceme tools.
3
I'm wondering if this decision opened the door for the two bills that the Senate will consider on Thursday. At last a little bit of movement on McConnell's part. He has sacrificed the country's well being for his reelection prospects.
My heart goes out to the 4 million Federal contractors who have lost a month's wages. While it's been difficult for the 800,000 Federal employees, they will be compensated.
1
I hope the justices can stick together on this, under what is sure to be great pressure from the Trump administration.
Our founders gave them lifetime tenure precisely to stand up to this kind of pressure.
I like to think that Roberts now knows that the immigration question should not be resolved by the judiciary.
I hope that Roberts acknowledges, to himself at least, that his majority opinion in Shelby v Holder, which removed federal election supervision, was a big mistake. I hope he was as mortified as I was by the shameful conduct of some election officials in the 2018 elections.
I also hope the Shelby v Holder fiasco has inserted some humility into his judicial philosophy and that he realizes that the Court should not take it on itself to decide the DACA question.
I'm trying to understand this. The president is offering Daca as a bargaining chip in the wall funding/govt. shutdown dispute between the president and congress while an appeal to the supreme court is pending. Does he actually believe this is artful dealing? So now that the court has refused to hear the case does Daca stay with us for at least another year? Why would anyone agree to this "compromise"? A better question would be: How did we get here?
Not a bad idea:
"The compromise might be permanent legal resident status."
If it likes, the Democratic Party can fault Trump for "politicizing" the fate of the Dreamers. But, like it or not, that's what's happened. I think Trump's 3-year offer isn't good enough, but it certainly calls for a counter-offer from Pelosi/Schumer. A path to citizenship is almost certainly not in the works, since that would effectively "reward" illegal immigrants (the Dreamers' parents), but I think most Americans could "look the other way" if Dreamers were given permanent legal resident status. If that's the ultimate compromise, I'd vote for that even if it DOES "reward" illegal immigrants (the Dreamers' parents).
2
The Democratic Party's "problem" is that too many of its supporters think it's sufficient simply to come up with witty anti-Trump remarks, like this one:
"Cadet Bone Spurs to the rescue ..."
I agree that Trump almost certainly dodged the Vietnam-War draft with a "spurious" claim of "bone spurs." But I and many others dodged the Vietnam-War draft too -- not based on "bone spurs," in my case, but I'd gladly have used that excuse if I could have.
More important, calling Trump "Cadet Bone Spurs" doesn't mean he loses the 2020 election. The Democratic Party needs more than witty remarks to accomplish that.
4
As soon as President Obama announced the creation of DACA, the potential DACA recipients began criticizing it for not also offering protection to all of their relatives. The president eventually gave in, at least partially, and created DAPA to cover their parents.
If we allow DACA recipients to remain here, how do we know that they will not agitate for all of their relatives? They have the backing of many large tax-free foundations, both liberal (eg. the Ford Foundation and the Open Societies Foundation) and conservative (eg. the Koch Brothers’ Libre Initiative).
Would offering an amnesty to DACA recipients lead to an amnesty for all illegal migrants? Would it encourage potential migrants from poor countries around the world to come here, without papers, on the gamble that they, too, would eventually be granted an amnesty?
6
As a candidate for president, Trump made several statements indicating that he had compassion for the DREAMers, that he wanted legal protection for them, and that they should not worry about his insistence that they should not be protected by administrative action. Only after he became president and subject to the influence of Jeff Sessions' former right hand man, Stephen Miller, did Trump turn on the DREAMers and use them as bargaining chips in his war for the alt-right over the majority of Americans. In short, Trump sold out, as he often does, and sold out the children of undocumented immigrants who were raised in America.
2
It's becoming quite evident to a non-attorney what an Original Intent Conservative Court sees and does. It says these are legislative matters, or state matters and not the Court's business to decide. If it treats Imperial Trump like it treats poor Obama, at best we get consistency. People might not like the rulings, but at least their consistent. Vote
The opposing view is being ignored here:
" ... deporting kids who were raised their entire lives in the US, as Americans, is obviously unfair to them ... "
Pretty much everyone agrees that the Dreamers are unfairly caught in the middle here. A 4-year old isn't responsible for his parents' decision, years ago, to immigrate illegally.
But the fact remains that that 4-year old's parents DID immigrate illegally. To respond by bestowing US citizenship on their children amounts to rewarding them for illegally immigrating. As a parent myself, that prospect would be very appealing to me even if I knew that I were likely to be deported.
There's room here for a compromise -- someone suggested "permanent legal resident status," for example. Sounds good to me. Those who oppose ANY concession to Dreamers won't like such a compromise, but I'm confident they'd accept it grudgingly. But I can't imagine this dispute will be resolved by granting US citizenship to Dreamers (or a "path" to citizenship, whatever that means), since that would understandably be unacceptable to those who oppose illegal immigration by the Dreamers' parents. That's just not going to happen.
Time for a compromise here. Three more years almost certainly won't be enough, but "permanent legal resident status" may be.
6
@MyThreeCents, also, unless Democrats and the Koch Brothers/Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP agree to the chain migration reform recommendations of the Jordan Commission, if DACA recipients are given citizenship, the illegal immigrant parents (and any other relatives, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.), will all be able to get citizenship themselves via chain migration.
President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, led by African-American and Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, unanimously recommended this, among other changes, in 1995. Would have become law if Ms. Jordan had not sadly died at age 59; or if Bill Clinton had kept his promises to her and the Barbara Jordan wing of the Democratic Party.
3
I notice the NYT article doesn't include the usual link to the Supreme Court's decision.
Wasn't this simply a request by Trump to bypass the usual appellate process (which would require Trump to appeal the 9th Circuit's decision)?
Answer: Yes.
If so, a Supreme Court "no" means merely that Trump's appeal won't be "bumped" up to the front of the line. It doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree with the N.D. California district court and the 9th Circuit on the merits when the case reaches the Supreme Court from the 9th Circuit. If the Supreme Court then agrees with Trump (which I expect, though I must say that the N.D. California district court's opinion was an impressive intellectual feat), presumably DACA will end whether it ought to or not. If so, Trump's "legislative" offer of "three more years" IS significant -- not enough that I'd simply say "yes" to it if I were Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, but enough to warrant a counter-offer.
2
'Mr. Trump...has said he would be vindicated in the Supreme Court. He also predicted that a Supreme Court victory would strengthen his hand in negotiations with Democratic lawmakers over immigration issues.
“I think it’s going to be overturned in the United States Supreme Court, and I think it’s going to be overwhelmingly overturned,” Mr. Trump said at a cabinet meeting this month, adding, “So if we win that case — and I say this for all to hear — we’ll be easily able to make a deal on DACA and the wall as a combination.”'
Oops.
The politics of this issue of the Dreamers is beyond my ability to fully understand.
But to demand the deportation of 700,000 young people attending schools, colleges, working their jobs joining the armed services, seems to me to be beyond politics and fall into the category of unnecessary cruelty and vindictiveness that escapes moral reason.
2
Run this by me.
DACA as initiated by President Obama is an unconstitutional use of executive powers hence this administration overturned it and asks the Supreme Court to support that. However, if he gets his wall DACA will be constitutional for the next three years and then becomes unconstitutional again.
Am I close?
“the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties” is the key phrase here.
That’s really the crux of the president’s wall agenda. He says that if he had his wall there would be no DACA problem.
1
We could couple an offer to allow DACA recipients to remain and work here as permanent lawful residents with the requirement that all employers be required to enter every employee’s name and identifying information into a federal database to ascertain that he or she is legally permitted to work in our country. Employers would have to fire any employee who turned out to be an immigrant without federal permission to work here. Illegal immigrants would no longer be able to find work.
This would mean that the illegal immigrants who arrived here before turning age 16, and who attended school here, would be given the chance to stay, but that the rest of the people, who have been living here illegally, would not be able to find work. Most of them would then leave on their own accord.
3
This is a good example of Courts making new laws. DACA was a Executive order by Obama. That order expired March of 2018. Liberal judges have said that the program must be continued. With this precedent, Trump can issue many Executive Orders and apparently conservative judges can keep them in place for years.
4
If McConnell can get enough Senate votes to override a Trump veto, then McConnell's decision not to put a proposal to a vote would be inappropriate. But I gather McConnell does NOT have enough Senate votes to override a Trump veto. If that's the case, I find nothing wrong with McConnell's decision not to put a proposal to a vote. If it were at all a close case, I'd oppose McConnell's decision. But I gather it's NOT a close case: the votes just aren't there, and so calling a Senate vote would serve no purpose other than forcing Trump to do what everyone knows he'd do: veto the bill. Frankly, that's not reason enough to put a sure-fire-loser proposal to a Senate vote, and it wouldn't be if someone other than Trump were President.
1
@MyThreeCents
I appreciate your opinion, but my interpretation is exactly the opposite. 48 Democrats and 20 Republicans are tired ot this nonsense and it would be clear that Trump could be overridden. This doesn't play well with Mr. McConnell's "GOP before God and Country" position, and he's deadly scared it will be obvious.
And frankly, it doesn't matter. The Speaker's role is to put things to a vote. Not his job to decide how it plays out. He is wrong to not do so. And he should be impeached for Merrick Garland, flat out. That was criminal. Merritt Garland would have passed Senate confirmation
4
Whether you think it's a "good idea" to let some or all of them stay, I'm puzzled on the legal aspect of the decision. The law is clear and even Obama, years ago, said he did not have the power to do this unilaterally...and then did. I just don't understand why the President needs a special explanation for why the law should be enforced. I get it--they want to stay (but so do many others), and letting them stay is popular in many circles--but DACA was almost certainly unconstitutional and is not a law, so why can't the President, any President, carry out his constitutional duty to execute the laws of the land. BTW, this decision means the Dems will give nothing in the House now, which means possibly no deal at all, I suspect.
3
The great Emancipator said this :
"If the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
Unfortunately, we have indeed ceased to be our own rulers.
Today, in American politics, every issue is to be litigated and relitigated. Nothing is settled until SCOTUS speaks.
Heck, shut Congress down.
Running to courts to seek a relief on every contentious public policy issue - rather than best debated, compromised in our Congress - we are beginning to lose "the Republic if you can keep it" as Mr Franklin famously said.
I don't think the Founders ever thought judiciary would be so omni present in public policies. If they had, as wise as they have been with other parts of our constitution - Article I would create judiciary, then followed by Congesss and the Executive.
Our good Chief Justice is harming the very system he often talks about as a shining example for the world.
From Marshall's "emphatic province in deciding law" - the judiciary has become the "emphatic province of deciding public policies. "
It's a shame that we have lost a will to debate, compromise, vote and move on.
What this non-ruling really means is that Trump's offer to rescind his exec order overturning DACA is a meaningless gesture. DACA will remain in effect for at least another year & possibly through the rest of his term.
DACA and trangenders in the military, which are top o the fold today, are exactly the reasons Trump will be re-elected.
5
Those people will have a delay before (and if) the normal process put the case in front of the SC.The offer of Trump to the Democrats to postpone the action against the people living in USA under the DACA rules is less attractive!
Rather than negotiate with Trump about the dreamers and "The Wall," the Democrats should tell the American people they are giving him his $5.7 billion in order to re-open the government, to protect the American people from the potential harm that could come to our country from this reckless political stunt being played on the American people by this President.
The caveat to the deal, that the Democrats are going to start impeachment hearings immediately to air all of Trump's dirty laundry for the American people to see. Let the American people decide if we-the-people should impeach him.
I'll expect McConnell to do the same thing to Trump if the same situation arises:
"Mitch McConnell ... proudly quashed Obama's last nominee Merrick Garland ... "
For example, if RBG hangs on another year or so and then dies or resigns, McConnell will be in the same position as he was when Scalia died in 2016. If that happens, I would expect McConnell to let the winner of the 2020 election pick RBG's replacement.
On the other hand, if RBG (for example) dies or resigns sooner, I would expect McConnell to call a Senate vote on her replacement, just as I would have expected him to do so if Scalia had died, say, in October of 2015.
I'd fault McConnell if Hillary Clinton had won and McConnell had reneged on his commitment to let the 2016 election winner pick Scalia's replacement. But Hillary Clinton didn't win – Trump did – and so McConnell actually did only what he said he'd do.
Let's get "real" for just a moment here: If McConnell HAD called a vote on Merrick Garland while Obama was still President, would that not have been an utter waste of Senate time? Wasn't it all but certain that Garland would not have been confirmed?
1
Trumps strategy is that if he tortures DACA children or government workers the democrats will give him what he wants. Presumably because they have the human feelings of empathy for those he tortures, and he doesn’t have any empathy. Has it occurred to him that any normal human being will look at this in disgust and refuse to vote for him ever again? What if he gets to throw out DACA children in about a year and his democratic opponent promise to let them back in - and promise to pass a law that no federal worker can be required to work without getting a paycheck – and to reverse the discrimination against military personnel based on gender identity. Each of these targeted minorities may be small in themselves, but start combining them and you will have a very hard time getting even a stacked electoral college to fall your way.
1
So the Supremes did not grant certiorari on the DACA case, but nor did they deny it. That can only mean they are hoping Congress will settle the dreamers’ fate as part of settling the shutdown, but that failing that, they will take the case next term.
So look at the lineup from what came out today: The Court accepted a case on gun control, and we all know how that one will come out. They denied Trump’s bid for an immediate appeal in the transgender-in-the-military case, which means they will decide it in 2020 after it wends its way up, and they vacated the injunction against the ban in the meantime, which means they don’t think much of the challengers’ case on the merits. And they held their cards on DACA. That all likely means Trump will likely go into the election next year boosted by the tailwinds of a recent Democratic defeat on gun control as well as an affirmation of his power as commander-in-chief—and quite possibly with an affirmation of his take-no-prisoners immigration policy.
Our only hope against such a buoying of Trump fortunes is for John Roberts to break ranks with his GOP brethren in some major case of presidential power or GOP policy in order to protect his own legacy, to keep from being the Chief Justice who presided over the Court when it became so overtly partisan it lost the respect of the American people. That’s not much, but as Linda Greenhouse once said, Justice Roberts may be slender reed to hang onto, but he’s the only reed we’ve got.
16
@Steel Magnolia
“That all likely means Trump will likely go into the election next year boosted by the tailwinds ....”
....Uhm, no, he just lost the midterms by the most devastating margin of any Republican since post WaterGate Nixon.
He has shut the government down. He is going to be impeached and his approval ratings are garbage.
Tailwind....? There’s some wind coming out of Trump’s tail alright.
1
Mr. Trump - Tough Noogies!
5
The Supreme Court probably opted to review the case because its expects a political solution to the DACA dilemma to emerge fro the shutdown crisis. Trump has offered a three-year extension in exchange for border security funding, including a border barrier built to border Border Patrol specifications. Democrats should demand citizenship. The compromise might be permanent legal resident status.
3
Did you know that in January of last year, the Democrats offered to give Trump 25 billion--the whole wall!--for a path to citizenship for dreamers. Trump, ever the dealmaker, said no. He wanted more.
If he walked away from such an amazing deal then, what makes you think he'll accept anything other than Dems giving him the wall for nothing? It's too late for deals with Trump, we tried our best and instead he tries to extort us.
32
@William Case
No. Only a fool would negotiate with a con man asking for something in exchange for nothing.
Trump’s effort to destroy DACA has been delayed long enough for Trump to be impeached, rendering his effor to destroy DACA irrelevant.
That is all that has happened here.
2
Trump did not offer a three year extension. DACA is currently in force with no deadline. All Trump did was say he was going to back off completely rescinding DACA for some people for 3 years. That is not an extension. The entire issue is in legal review and hopefully will stay that way until a new president is elected and cancels what Trump is doing.
3
Many commenters are overstating what the USSC "decided" here:
"The SC needs to review this at some point."
The USSC hasn't decided it won't hear this case. It's decided only that the case has to follow the usual procedure: district court, then Court of Appeals, then the USSC. True, the USSC might decide never to take this case (though I doubt it will decide that), but all it's decided so far is that the case doesn't warrant "bumping" other appeals. Trump can appeal the Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the district court's decision, and probably already has.
11
@MyThreeCents - True. However, the White House and the DOJ have decided every decision adverse to Trump’s attempt to govern by fiat should go straight to the Supreme Court, with sirens wailing and lights flashing ‘national emergency, immediate action required.’ This is consistent with Trump’s oft-stated view that any court that presents opposition to his orders, or those of his cabinet ministers, is a ‘rogue’ that should be smacked down. Trump no doubt expects that ‘his’ Justices will line up behind him, and should they fail to do so, they will field the same insults meted out to Sessions (‘how dare he recuse himself!’), Mattis (‘he’s practically a Democrat!’), Mueller (‘conflicted!’), and even Chief Justice Roberts. Anyone who dares to disagree, or even to withhold effusive praise of Fearless Leader, is fair game in Trumpworld.
The Supreme Court isn’t about to be bullied into acting as Trump’s handmaiden, and that’s their message here. Trump and Congress are going to have to figure out how to govern. And good luck with that, so long as Trump sits in the Oval Office and Mitch McConnell refuses to allow a vote on anything Trump will veto. McConnell is the dam protecting Trump from the flood of public opposition to his attempted dictatorship and his current effort to use the ‘shutdown’ to extort billions of tax dollars for a boondoggle construction project - what history will call ‘Trump’s Folly,’ the federal equivalent of Trump’s Taj Mahal.
One veto override and it’s over.
2
The reason DACA and any number of other issues are moving through the courts is because Congress refuses to do its job. None of us should want activist judges, left or right. But by its inactivity, Congress is forcing this on the courts.
What do people in Congress do anyway? McConnell won’t advance legislation Trump won’t sign. That’s now how this should work. The respective leaders in the House and Senate have too much power and it subverts the will of the people through their representatives.
No way to run a country.......
68
@HeyJoe. Well said. People still do not get that Congress makes the laws and Congress has not been doing its job.
1
@HeyJoe McConnell and his gutless republican dupes are essentially an extension of the executive branch. Their salaries should also be withheld while the thousands of government employees are forced to remain on the job without pay during #45s needless and heartless insistence that a useless wall be approved in order for his narcissistic ego to be satiated.
2
@HeyJoe I have read reports that Cpngressmembers spend 80% of their time funding for reelection.
2
Cadet Bone Spurs to the rescue.....of absolutely no one.
The Racist-In-Chief fails again.
Strike three-hundred-thirty-three !
29
The Supreme Court probably decided not to hear the DCA case because they expect a political solution to emerge out of he current government shutdown crisis. If not, the Justice Department will continue the battle in the lower courts.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruling in vulnerable because, as he article notes,= the court acknowledge Trump has authority to end DACA but questioned Trump's rationale. In effect, the court ruled it can reverse presidential decisions simply because it disagrees with the decisions.
16
Congress makes law"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vestedin a Congress of the United States,", and the President enforces enforced them "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Over the year the laws have not been enforced and the status quo of our country depends on many border law being ignored because we have adjusted to that as the new normal.
Congress has a duty to update the border laws including providing the tools to enforce them. Thereafter, the President must faithfully enforce them as he is obligated to do as they are written now.
@William Case hopefully this drags on until the next election so DACA stays in place until the next president can reverse what Trump reversed.
1
@William Case
I think the cruelty of trump's policy was duly noted by the Court and the right decision was made.
3
If this decision by SCOTUS is a corrective action by Chief Judge John Roberts to ameliorate the damage promised henceforth by his now well-stacked-with-right-wing-partisans court -- courtesy of Mitch McConnell, who proudly quashed Obama's last nominee Merrick Garland, during which partisan stall Roberts stayed silent, thereby allowing it to happen, then good for Judge Roberts.
SCOTUS is now stacked. I recall George W. Bush saying over and over that he wanted no judges "legislating from the bench." That's not what we now have.
Pray for the health of RBG while the clear madman Trump is in office, or Roberts himself will have no control whatsoever.
100
Poor Donald, now he needs to find a whole new set of hostages. His maneuverings in this court battle and his reasoning for wanting a legal win so he could, once again, use human beings as bargaining chips shows why it is so important for Democrats to stay firm in this shutdown battle. If he is given any encouragement in the current fight he will not hesitate to replicate it in future ones.
111
@Rick Gage AMEN!! If the Democrats give in on this -- they may as well say Good-bye to any future wins. He will shut the government down again, again and again. Unfortunately, if you don't believe it -- just watch him!!!
5
@Rick Gage
100% correct. Not one penny must be offered to this madman.
Impeach Trump and either have the Senate remove him - or the American people replace him.
Problem solved.
3
@Rick Gage - I recommended your post, but I actually really really dislike it (because it's true)
2
I was a high school teacher in a school that serves predominantly first generation immigrant kids. When, every morning, the Pledge of Allegiance came over the PA system it was the Hispanic and Gujarati students who stood with hands over hearts.
122
@Paul Schmitz, that is great to hear. Some schools in parts of Vermont no longer even do the Pledge of Allegiance.
2
The middle has vanished from American politics.
The left says that Trump and his supporters are bigots and racists because they deny open borders.
The right says: We passed an Immigration Reform Bill in 1986. It was undercut by liberals who declared certain cities sanctuaries in defiance of laws duly passed by Congress. We have had enough. We insist on a Wall.
Trump is being a bit disingenuous. He has said the government shutdown may last for months or years. He has no interest in actual negotiations. That's because a government shutdown will inflict more and more pain, causing ever greater polarization in American politics.
He is hoping for a reaction of outrage on the left, say a march on Washington by millions of illegal immigrants and their supporters, with placards calling those who voted for Trump racists and bigots. That will lead to even greater polarization.
When 800,000 federal workers are not receiving paychecks, who is it that cares about a mere $130K paid to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an affair?
When Republican Senators have been characterized as racists on the pages of the New York Times, will they be willing to ignore the social pressure to save their own in-group and vote to remove Trump from office?
By some estimates the government shutdown will have cost the government more than $5.7 billion for the wall by the end or this week or the next.
Stop hurting innocent Americans. Give Trump funding for the Wall and then impeach him.
6
@Jake Wagner very few people want open borders. The vast majority want reasonable immigration policy. I do believe there are a lot of bigots on the right, but not because of borders, but because they are against immigrants and people different from them in general. Trump should not be given wall funding. He said Mexico would pay for it, and he owns the shutdown by his own admission.
2
@Jake Wagner
I agree about the Wall - vote for the funding, open the government. It can always be reversed later. Some think approval will galvanize his base, but I suspect he has lost some of that base over the shut down. Meanwhile, he is destabilizing the Federal workforce. Very likely his purpose in all of this, which serves his real masters, the Kochs, the Mercers, the DeVos and their ilk.
2
@Jake Wagner Quit spouting nonsense. The left most certainly is not demanding open borders. Parroting Trump does not make a statement so. Not a single Democratic Presidential candidate or senator has called for open borders. Not one. So you lied. You made that up completely. The left has called for protection for children brought by their parents to the United States (Dreamers). In your mind that might mean the same thing as open borders, but that would still be false.
4
Doesn't this render Trump's "compromise" deal meaningless?
80
Nice to see Trump's hostages have been released, for now.
55
To let the lower court rulings on President Trump's attempt to rescind DACA is a correct and an important ruling because it signals the Court's willingness to protect people's human and civil rights against an abuse of presidential powers. Since the Supreme Court looks at the Constitution as the foundation of laws over time and across a succession of presidential administrations, a vital consideration is continuity. If a president can undo policies of his/her predecessor purely for political purposes, then the rule of law is not sustainable. People's lives and livelihoods are thrown into chaos by abrupt and unreasonable changes in policies.
The key term in these lower court rulings is "arbitrary and capricious." The Supreme Court has rightfully curtailed an abuse of power by this arbitrary and capricious President.
38
@Jenna Black, every single president reverses policies of predecessor president. For example, "Mexico City" policy on abortion. It prevents US funding from going to NGO's that support abortion. Reagan implemented it; Clinton reversed it; Bush, Jr. reversed Clinton (to re-institute the policy); Obama reversed Bush, Jr.; Trump reversed Obama, etc.
To use 9th Circuit's reasoning from DACA case that looked at an Executive Order benefit or "right" given to foreign nationals such as DACA recipients, it seems just as cruel and arbitrary to take away the full spectrum of US-funded family planning options offered to foreign nationals. I gained a somewhat new perspective and new respect for the pro-life position after becoming a parent but still remain pro-choice. From a pro-environment perspective looking at global population growth and the connection to illegal immigration pressures, there is also a logical inconsistency from the GOP in not supporting full family planning in other parts of the world.
Anyway, the 9th Circuit has let the Mexico City policy be reversed and not taken issue with it. One could use the 9th Circuit's reasoning also with respect to implementation of NAFTA and China's admission to the WTO: "the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive [jobs for US citizens and legal immigrants] to countries with which they have no ties."
1
@GRH
The point of the lower court rulings in the DACA case is that President Trump did not provide a coherent rationale for rescinding the protections afforded the DACA recipients to justify this action. President Trump gave no compelling rationale to take away DACA recipients' right to work legally in the US to support themselves and their families, to complete their studies at universities and to continue to be productive members of their communities without having to live in the shadows in fear of deportation. Do you think he has/had such a rationale? I don't see that comparison to other EOs is informative here. I question President Trump's reasoning, not the reasoning of the lower courts.
2
@Jenna Black, to be fair, I did not read the full opinion from either the District Court or the 9th Circuit. But based on past actions, it would certainly seem possible/likely that Trump team did not do the necessary heavy-lifting to button-up the reversal from legal perspective and satisfy the "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Probably ought to read the decision to better understand how the 9th Circuit is differentiating DACA from DAPA, which I understand was already ruled unconstitutional by a different circuit.
Good for SCOTUS. A wise move to wait, particularly if there is some legislative action.
30
Thankfully the Court elected not to hear this case in this term. Dreamers that are and have been productive members of American society are more entitled to the rights and privileges afforded Americans than those who feed off the backs of others and have aided and abetted our enemy.
78
This is great news. The status of the Dreamers is not something that should be left in the hands of SCOTUS. It’s high time that Congress comes up with a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Complex as it is, we need to deal with this issue head on. No hiding behind the robes of SCOTUS for either the president or Members of Congress. Tell us where you really stand!
71
Now they can't use these young human beings as a bargaining chip.
131
Worst case scenario is the Dreamers move to a country that has better weather, better food, better dancing, and where people are friendlier to strangers.
38
@Peter Silverman why yes, this is precisely why more caravans are headed away! What are they thinking? Murder? Mayhem? Lack of opportunities? At least it’s sunny out on no cover charges to the discos!?
@Peter Silverman and can't speak that language because they lived their whole life in America, because they are Americans.
@Kris, this is inaccurate. For example, DACA recipient Martha Herrera Coria, profiled in Vermont's Seven Days newspaper, came to the United States at age 15, of her own free will (her parents and grandparents remain in Mexico), and, after 12 years in the United States, she still speaks little to no English (needed a translator for the newspaper's interview). I have no idea if she is the average DACA recipient or a far out-lier who should not have received DACA status, but it is a very different example from the story that was told about how all DACA recipients lived most of their life in America and don't even speak the language of their home nation, where they were born.
If the story that has been told in the media about the latter DACA recipients is the case (for example, someone brought to the US illegally at age 2 or 3, and who is bilingual, and has mostly known no other life, and has not committed other crimes, etc), then arguably those DACA recipients do indeed have a good case. It just turns out that at least some DACA recipients do not fit this profile at all.
6
I have to wonder if this doesn't cut the legs from under 44.01's attempt to trade temporary revocation of his DACA threats for wall funding -- leaving him and Mitch standing naked in the shutdown cold.
131
@Imago
It sure doesn't help his vile cause.
38
@Imago
It surely looks as it pulls the rug from underneath his attempt to give a carrot to the Democrats. The carrot turns out to be of zero value since a SCOTUS ruling would not be expected for one to two years at a minimum. Why should Democrats relent on the wall when the offer on the table has no value?
Will courts find that future presidents cannot undo Trump's executive orders? Or are the courts deciding that presidents they like should have more power than presidents they dislike?
I don't think illegal immigrant minors should be deported in general, but if so, Congress and the President should pass a law to that effect.
12
@Beliavsky The lower court ruled that undoing an executive order requires a solid legal rationale. It can't be done arbitrarily at the whim of a president, because that would be authoritarianism.
122
RE: Executive Orders
"[Justice Robert] Jackson said the President’s powers were at their height when he had the direct or implied authorization from Congress to act; at their middle ground – the Zone of Twilight, as he put it, when it was unsure which branch could act; and at their “lowest ebb” when a President acted against the expressed wishes of Congress." --constitutioncenter.org
As you remember, Pres. Obama repeatedly said that he did not have the power to change immigration law -- a power vested in the legislature. After Congress refused to act on immigration, Pres. Obama issued his DACA executive order. Clearly there is a case to be made for the executive exceeding his authority in this case.
If the lower court ruled against presidential "whim," was it Obama's whim or Trump's that was most unconstitutional?
2
@M Your argument is specious.
You manage to conclude that the unwillingness of congress to act - > is proof that congress is opposed to any action the President might take.
In which case executive orders would always be unconstitutional since had the congress chosen to act - the executive order would always be unnecessary.
According to you the Emancipation Proclaimation (in which Lincoln ended Slaver) was Unconstitutional because Congress had not already ‘acted’ to outlaw slavery.
Ridiculous.
2
What case was tabled?
1
The ball is now in your court, Leader McConnell. You can choose to continue to support a child throwing a tantrum or to do your job. Choose wisely.
185
It’s heartening to see that even with its new conservative majority the Court won’t always do Trump’s bidding.
The refusal to grant cert means that Trump’s phony compromise is now moot. It’s time for McConnell to let the Senate vote on a clean bill that re-opens the government without Humpty Dumpty’s wall.
7
@BCasero
Dreamer.
1
@BCasero
"Choose wisely. "
Hope springs eternal in the human breast.
2
Disappointing. The SC needs to review this at some point. The status quo is totally absurd and politically motivated: the President couldn't unilaterally undo a potentially unconstitutional act that the previous president unilaterally instituted. Absolute rubbish.
15
@Matt true but it does take a bargaining chip off the table from the "president's" last "deal"
11
@Matt
I don't understand your basis for asserting that the court will have to review this case sooner or later. But even assuming you have a point, I'd still say that on balance this is a clear win for America. First, deporting kids who were raised their entire lives in the US, as Americans, is obviously unfair to them. It's a simple fact that fairness is an abiding virtue to be promoted in our society, But even more to the point, deporting American Latinos is exactly the kind of ethnically marked unfairness that we don't need at this point- we're already at each other's throats enough as it is.
Not to mention, attracting immigrants to the US has been an abiding key to our prosperity. President Trump's ill considered and emotional policies have put a damper on that to say the least. The sooner we reverse these sorts of foolish policies the better.
55
@Matt
There is a big difference between giving and taking away. Think building permits. If one elected official gives the green light for a building project the next cannot (and should not be able to) just tale it away.
19