SCOTUS rules for the continuance of DACA
“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. ‘The wisdom’ of those decisions ‘is none of our concern,’” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”
Roberts wrote that the administration “failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance,” as well as the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program.
“That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner,” Roberts wrote. “The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”
Clarence Thomas, in the dissent:
Without grounding its position in either the APA or precedent, the majority declares that DHS was required to overlook DACA’s obvious legal deficiencies and provide additional policy reasons and justifications before restoring the rule of law. This holding is incorrect, and it will hamstring all future agency attempts to undo actions that exceed statutory authority.
I’m in agreement with Thomas.
It’s certainly possible that the order could be reworded so that it would be considered “reasonable” by the Court. But that doesn’t fix the problem of what the Court did today (and of course if Trump isn’t re-elected, it’s not going to happen). It seems to me that the Court is basically saying they don’t like Trump’s order and therefore they won’t allow it to stand, even though Obama’s order was almost certainly deeply flawed.
One thing this decision underlines is that at this point Justice Roberts (a Bush nominee to the Court) is a reliably liberal vote, or at the very least the new swing vote.
Another thing it underlines is that the liberals on the Court have consistently applied subjective feeling standards (as well as mind-reading, in some of its decisions) to reach the goal it happens to like. Aeons ago when I was in law school, I had to read many appellate decisions and a large percentage of them were SCOTUS decisions. I agreed with the results of some and disagreed with the results of others. I found some arguments more persuasive than others, as well. Sometimes I would have liked a different result in terms of the ruling’s effect, and yet the argument for it was so solid that I had to admit that, my personal preferences aside, it was the correct ruling.
But very seldom if ever in those days did I find that a ruling with which I disagreed had really poor reasoning behind it, rather than just questionable reasoning. In recent years, though, that’s been happening more and more frequently – the rulings with which I disagree involve either some sort of tortuous and convoluted reasoning/sophistry, or the application of a subjective and arbitrary judgment.
ADDENDUM: In 2018 I wrote a post about Roberts, and I’d like to repeat here something I said back then:
I believe that there are at least three more things operating with Roberts…The first is that most people, especially ambitious people—and that includes SCOTUS justices—are attracted to power. Power is enticing, and increasing one’s own power is always tempting. So what could be more powerful for Roberts than becoming a swing justice? It would mean that a great many huge and important cases would turn on what Roberts thinks.
Secondly, Roberts was nominated by George Bush. What better way for Roberts to prove that he’s no “Bush judge” than to vote with the liberals? So that’s another motivation…
Thirdly, I’ve noticed a tendency in Roberts—long before Trump became president—to vote in the way that is least likely to upset the status quo apple cart. For example, in the case of Obamacare, Roberts found a “creative” way to avoid a bold overturning of a bill that had been passed by Congress…
Today’s decision by Roberts falls along those lines – to choose the least disruptive path in terms of keeping the status quo.
It is said by persons with knowledge of Roberts that he is a believer in a ruling elite. he does not like to upset them.
The way Roberts bent over backwards to uphold Obamacare removes any possible doubt about what’s really going on here.
I pair this ridiculous ruling with Rich Lowry’s newest column in Politico where he warns conservatives not to defend Confederate statues.
https://twitter.com/RichLowry/status/1273622011051376641?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
Robert and Lowry comfortably represent the Republican establishment in the U.S. and neither one seems to understand that without religious and cultural conservatives, their political party would have a tough time winning anything higher than a city council seat. If Trump goes down this November, it will be time to enlighten them on that salient fact.
Mike
Mike
In three recent decisions, two of which Roberts wrote, he:
1) Religious liberty is subject to being disregarded if an emergency is declared.
2) Words in the constitution and laws can be reinterpreted at anytime and new law created at the court’s discretion.
3) An Executive Order, when even the executive said he didn’t have the authority to rewrite the law, is the law which must only be overturned with greater diligence than what went into its creation.
The US has been transformed into a banana republic where the elites can, and will, do whatever they want and the courts concur or take it further to deny all of us rights and equality under the law.
Favored groups will gain power and the elites will continue their lording over us.
Welcome to a time of sanctioned lawlessness and the arbitrary exercise of power. Question, is this ruling extraordinary, without precedence?
Can someone please tell me why we voted for 12 years of Bushes?
What did we get from that family tree that expanded individual liberty, reduced the size of government & its interference in our lives, or rolled back the globalist onslaught?
I’ve about had all I can stand of the “Well…the other guys would have been worse.” Dukakis, Gore & Kerry could well have been unmitigated disasters. How is Roberts not? How was Iraq II not? The list is long and we could all add our “favorite” neoconservative cluster….
Yep…the last week of a so-called “conservative” SCOTUS rulings, riots in the streets over nothing & a months-long quarantine for no discernible result pretty much has me reaching for the pitchforks & torches.
What one pen and phone can enact, another pen and phone should be able to cancel. That systems have twisted themselves into purpose should not be taken into account when they will untwist themselves after the cancellation.
I have always been concerned that the deep state has something on Roberts. What it is is unknown,yes .. Sex??family??…It will only come out if he does not rule the right way…
Lost in the discussion is the obvious attack on representative democracy. If a President makes a executive order that the mob likes, it becomes law. If the public dislikes it, we can vote for a different President, but, apparently, he doesn’t have the power to rescind the decree. Perhaps the SCOTUS will allow the law to be changed by a bill passed by both houses of Congress, but that’s a tall order, given the ability to filibuster. The public elected this President to reverse policies on immigration, but they won’t get it.
Apparently, we don’t elect Presidents anymore: we elect kings, but DNC kings are more equal than GOP kings.
Mark Levin is telling radio listeners that SCOTUS is now lawless, and Roberts is almost completely gone to the old left. They are a fascist body, today, he argues.
SCOTUS now does more to trash law and damage the Republic than mass rioters and looters do.
Even Traitor Obama knew DACA was not Constitutional. Levin plays sound bites via PJmedia of Zero admitting so (I assume they have this theme covered there, today). Then he plays two bites of Sen Cruz on the floor of Senate excoriating this trashing.
Not even The Court denies that Obama believed DACA was unconstitutional.
“This decision was fascistic,” says Levin. It Denies the rule of law and denies the separation of powers. Say it, Brother!
The Court, “It’s destroying its reputation to the American people,” says Levin. Indeed. No respect for any lying Courts or lawyers. Only hatred.
It’s dead to me.
Roberts must be impeached. If only for the Right who don’t join the New Civil War. Conservatives MUST organise the right to indict him. Elect only Senators to campaign for this single issue. Every election.
I trust this Mark Levin show will be posted online somewhere. (I missed the first 6 minutes.)
Parker asks, “ Welcome to a time of sanctioned lawlessness and the arbitrary exercise of power. Question, is this ruling extraordinary, without precedence?” No, not technically.
Gorsuch and Roberts have sent a few other decisions back to the Executive branch for procedural redressing.
But in terms of border control and immigration policy, yes, I believe this one is a first ever. Advert to illegals! Open Borders USA, c’mon down!
Equally, the open partisanship of Team Roberts is revealed by swallowing whole the best anti-Trump, anti-sovereignty rationale on offer. The embrace IS Trump Hate agenda driven.
Thus, there are a web of multiple messages in this decision. Discard the dressing, however, and it’s usurpation of the People’s law making powers. They hate us. We must return the favour and return the hate.
Time to plan your exit from the US or else stock your remote bolt hole.
Ah, but Robert’s will always rule “the right way”. He knows who butters his bread.
TJ:
Here is a link to the audio rewind of the Mark Levin Show. The download feature does work if you follow the instructions. 😉
https://www.marklevinshow.com/audio-rewind/
\\
Could be worse, RBG could live forever?
“Conservatives MUST organise the right to indict him.” TJ
News flash! Constitutional conservatives are decidedly in the minority… on the right.
Proof of that assessment is the failure of the Tea Party to gain dominance on the right.
That’s human nature; historically demonstrated by the fact that only about 1/3rd of the american colonists were actually willing to fight the British. 1/3 were loyalists and the last 1/3rd sitting on the sidelines waiting to see who the winner would turn out to be… today we call them RINOs and Liberals.
Geoffrey – looks like the breakdown into thirds is pretty ancient.
(Even if you don’t accept the theology, the math seems to keep cropping up.)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/war-in-heaven?lang=eng
There is no named political party for the actually conservative 1/3 of the people.
https://babylonbee.com/news/having-been-betrayed-by-republican-judges-conservatives-vow-to-vote-republican-even-harder-next-time
I can see the reasoning by the Bee writer, but there really doesn’t seem to be an alternative to continuing to vote Republican — it’s guaranteed that Democrat-appointed justices would be even worse than Roberts (and Gorsuch, apparently).
If only they would —
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrat-legislators-retire-in-peace-since-supreme-court-doing-their-job-for-them
When speaking of Roberts recall:
1) the banned immigration question on the census
2) “no Obama judges”
3) Roberts oversaw the FISA court
What we’ve recently witnessed is the strongest possible evidence that SCOTUS judges should not be appointed for life. We need an Amendment that limits each to a ten-year term, rotates the Chief judgeship every 2 or 4 years by vote of the judges, and further service on the Court is subject to re-confirmation by the Senate.
No more Warrens or Roberts!