Posted on 02/26/2018 6:40:20 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a blow to the Trump administration by refusing to hear the government's challenge to a lower court ruling that has temporarily blocked the administration from winding down the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The Department of Justice’s request was rare in that it asked the Supreme Court to jump ahead of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in reviewing the case.
The court typically will only bypass an appellate court when there’s an emergency involving foreign affairs, a serious separation of powers concerns or when it has already agreed to hear another case dealing with the same question.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Yep. If you can’t change hearts and minds stack the demographic in your favor.
No body but Trump wants to talk about it.
Its days are very short!
Good question.........
Tell the appellate court to enforce their decision.
This is procedure, not substance. The Supreme Court has not made any final decision. As the article says, the Supreme Court decided NOT to jump the queue and pull the matter out of the hands of the Ninth Circuit before the Ninth Circuit gets a chance to deal with it.
Ninety percent of the headlines that report on legal procedings involving Trump that blare out “Trump Lost!!!” or “Trump Won!!!” are just way stations on a long road to a final decision.
Just one more step down the road away from a representative republic and towards an executive dictatorship. Are you enjoying the ride?
“A serious separation of powers concerns”
If this is NOT a serious separation of powers concern, then the concept has no meaning.
If Roberts has joined #theresistance then we are in serious trouble.
That is exactly how I feel each day! I cannot recall any sitting President having to endure attacks from all sides!
The Supreme Court is hoping that Congress will do it’s job before the issue works its way through the appeals court.
Fat Chance.
Has to go through appeals Court first. Totally procedural.
My problem is that this, clearly does not fall under their jurisdiction. EOs are exactly that. The judiciary has no right under the Constitution to weigh in.
The Supreme court should be obligated to say just that when presented with this and not allow procedural nonsense to interfere.
So, justice delayed, again. The comments indicate no one really understands the implications. Will have to go look for someone who does.
There was never a eo by obama or trump. Just policy from dhs.
Obama ignores laws:
* congress doesn’t care
* courts don’t care
Trump follows laws:
* courts say he can’t
* congress doesn’t do anything (except complain that he’s following the laws)
We don’t need Hillary or the FBI or FISA details to see that we are no longer a country of laws.
"DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The memo formally directed them to exercise their enforcement discretion on behalf of individuals who met the requirements.[43]"
Here's the homeland security pdf memorandum.
Ugh. My third post because I’m incredulous about this.
EOs are not laws. A President has every right to undo a previous President’s EO.
Why is the judiciary even involved? Again, Trump has the worst legal advice in the history of mankind.
>>This essentially means that renewals can continue indefinitely <<
MUI is no new applications are being processed and the ruling protects those who already applied.
Also MUI the basis for the injunction is a sort of “promissory estoppel” theory that applicants took steps against their interest (apply, pay a fee, give up personal info) and therefore a contract with the feds has been created. There is more there than most FReepers realize.
Again, both My Understanding.
There was never a eo about daca from obama or trump. Just policy change from dhs.
>>EOs are not laws. A President has every right to undo a previous President’s EO.<<
Promissory Estoppel. See my post upthread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.