Thank very much ninth circuit now for your ruling to be over turned as per usual
Watch Roberts torpedo Trump in the SC. Just watch. In fact, watch Roberts turn hard left now that Trump’s given the conservatives a majority.
“Just what I expected. Now it heads to SCOTUS but I don’t know about Ginsburg. “
Who gives a $hit about her? She isn’t key to any decision with the current makeup of the SCOTUS. Trump just needs to replace her before he leaves office to insure the continuation of the firewall he’s building there. She will not live another six years, and hopefully will have to leave, one way or the other before the next election. Ditto for Breyer.
There is (should) be only one needed reason. Namely that it is an attempt to usurp the enumerated power of Congress to make a uniform rule of naturalization.
Since when does the President have to explain policy decisions to any court?
Without Ginsburg, the court is likely 5-3 in favor of conservatives.
Preposterous.
How come president Obama singlehandedly could create it, but the next president doesn’t have the power to cancel it?
If one President used an Executive Order to create DACA (Obama), I fail to see the 9th Circus’ logic that a duly elected President cannot change/repeal it. It is an EO, not a duly passed law by the US Congress.
Unless I am in error that DACA derives from an EO, those 3 Justices of the 9th demonstrate why the LEFT is so fearful of being deprived of their ultimate weapon of legislating from the judge’s bench!
So they ruled that a sitting president cannot overturn the unconstitutional EO of a previous president?
“...said the administration voiced inadequate and flawed reasons for its decision in September 2017 to terminate an Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.”
Not the very careful wording. “Obama-era program” not “Obama’s previous executive order”.
Wouldn’t want your readers to know that Obama instituted the policy via the same method Trump is using to undo it.
it’s simply 8 justices if Ruthie doesn’t show up
It’s been pointed out that a court has no standing to rule on one executive cancelling the order of a previous executive.
Is there any precedent for this? It seems like the court simply ruled on the policy and not where it was derived.
But it’s not a law.
quote “said the administration voiced inadequate and flawed reasons for its decision in September 2017 to terminate an Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA”
um... Trump doesn’t have to give ANY reason for terminate it!
WTH!
but DACA is dead ,been that way for a long time
The D in DACA stands for DEFERRED. It has been deferred long enough; time to crap or get off the pot.
Trump needs to judge shop before issuing these.
If this takes long enough, Trump’s NEXT SCOTUS appointee will be seated to hear the case.
There are two parts to this:
1. There are new applications.
2. There are those that have completed applications.
POTUS is canceling an Odumbass Exec Order allowing for applications which means no new applications will be decided. So #1 above is eliminated.
The 800,000 or so DACAs that have applied and been granted time to adjust are a pool of people that POTUS is going to have his administration review on a case-by-case basis. So #2 above is ongoing.