BREAKING: Roberts joins court's liberals to overturn Trump decision to rescind DACA

[Nemesis]

This is a great win for America.

Two great SC decisions this week. Makes up for all the decisions I have disagreed with but thats the SC. We cannot just pick and choose when we think the SC is working.

[Ben_Natuf]

Then he should ignore them. Let them administer their own opinions while he executes the law.

[Ben_Natuf]

one very bad decision empowering the administrative state over the elected officials who are supposed to lead it.

[Ben_Natuf]

The law itself is an affront to democracy. I wish it had been challenged. But it was not. Bad decision.

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

Then he should ignore them

hmmmm

@Ben_Natuf

This ruling is an affront to everything American

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

you know what the check on a previous presidents eo’s is?

a new president.

but you go on celebrating the death of democracy

Why doesn’t trump issue an EO to end DACA?

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

The law itself is an affront to democracy. I wish it had been challenged. But it was not. Bad decision.

the decision was based on existing law constitutionally passed and signed over 80 years ago…

[Ben_Natuf]

LOL, learn history. Nothing new about the executive ignoring the court. I believe Jefferson was the first.

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

LOL, learn history. Nothing new about the executive ignoring the court. I believe Jefferson was the first.

so much for following the law.period.

[Ben_Natuf]

which has no bearing whatsoever on whether that law itself passes constitutional muster. The idea that a newly elected president is bound by the eo’s of his predecessor is ludicrous.

[DougBH]

@biggestal99

@DougBH

And the court will throw it out again. Apparently all you needed to start the program was “prosecutorial discretion” but to end it you actually need in depth documentation and likely hearings.
Well, start in on those.
Likely whatever they do, the Roberts court will throw it out based on at least five of the judges like the program and they aren’t going to allow it to be dropped just because of laws and stuff

You have to give Obama credit, the man writes a mean EO.

One that cannot be overturned easily.

Allan

I don’t give Obama “credit” for that. I give Roberts “credit” for that.

[Ben_Natuf]

find me anywhere in the constitution where it says the president must obey the edicts of the court? They are co-equal. The courts are not the superior branch.

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

which has no bearing whatsoever on whether that law itself passes constitutional muster. The idea that a newly elected president is bound by the eo’s of his predecessor is ludicrous.

half right…getting closer. maybe if the admin had followed the law properly…like the court explicitly ruled

[Ben_Natuf]

sadly, I tried to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt on other rulings… no more. Another Bush mistake.

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

find me anywhere in the constitution where it says the president must obey the edicts of the court? They are co-equal. The courts are not the superior branch.

never said otherwise

[Ben_Natuf]

why would the administration be bound to follow a law that on its face is unconstitutional? Maybe you should read Marbury. The ruling in Marbury about unconstitutional provisions being treated as void does not just apply to courts. Niether here nor there however, as the administration did not challenge the law. They should have.

[Ben_Natuf]

and yet we both know that was the clear implication of your post.

do go on though.

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

why would the administration be bound to follow a law that on its face is unconstitutional? Maybe you should read Marbury. The ruling in Marbury about unconstitutional provisions being treated as void does not just apply to courts. Niether here nor there however, as the administration did not challenge the law. They should have.

who decides what is constitutional? like you said

@Ben_Natuf

They are co-equal. The courts are not the superior branch.

so maybe if the admin had followed the law like the court wants them to…

[mobiusptc]

@Ben_Natuf

and yet we both know that was the clear implication of your post.

do go on though.

nopes.

[Ben_Natuf]

@mobiusptc

who decides what is constitutional? like you said

according to the founders… each branch for itself. Then the “controversy” is decided in court.

@mobiusptc

so maybe if the admin had followed the law like the court wants them to…

according to Marburry, the law must be ignored if it is unconstitutional. They did not reserve to themselves this judgement. Marbury literally say ANY government officer must do so.