Supreme Court to Trump: You Rescinded DACA Wrong
Here’s the breakdown:
Five justices, including Roberts, voted that Trump had violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Eight justices — everyone but Sotomayor — voted that Trump’s action did not violate equal protection.
Three justices — Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch — ruled that DACA itself was unlawful.
That last ruling is the ruling I believe is correct.
I have not had a chance to read the opinion thoroughly. I am skeptical about the APA argument from what I knew going in, but I’ll have to see how Roberts explains that.
But I know that I believed going in that Obama’s action was unconstitutional. I have believed that for years. So I don’t really care how arbitrary and capricious the decision to rescind it supposedly was. Immigration is Congress’s bailiwick. As Justice Thomas says in dissent: “To state it plainly, the Trump administration rescinded DACA the same way that the Obama administration created it: unilaterally, and through a mere memorandum.” It is baffling to me how a court can conclude that the creation of such a program, in an area of law assigned to Congress, can be lawful, but rescinding it in the same way is unlawful.
DACA was unconstitutionally created through a pen, and I see no statutory barrier to rescinding it with a different pen.
P.S. Roberts creates a roadmap for how Trump can rescind it the “right” way — knowing that if he does, that action too will be held up for years until we likely have a new president. Whoopee.
P.P.S. If Congress passed a similar law I would likely support it. I would worry about the incentives it creates, but philosophically I don’t believe in harshly enforcing technicalities against completely innocent parties.
This is not about the policy itself but whether it was done the right way. Ironically, that’s what the Court says too — but the majority doesn’t seem to apply their concern about things being done the right way to Obama’s unconstitutional actions, just to Trump’s corrective actions.
DACA is still unconstitutional and that the Court didn’t decide on that is a disgrace. This is about trying to run the clock out on their preferred policy.
NJRob (4d595c) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:36 amRoberts is Souter redux. Comes to the conclusion he wants, then finds the “law” to support it.
What a disgrace. Why do we have elections when our robed oligarchs just decide what they want from on high?
NJRob (4d595c) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:38 amHere’s the difference: Obama did it and Trump could not. Obama won, Trump lost. Because Obama was competent, and Trump is the most worthless President ever.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:39 amTrump on Twitter:
Along with his usual suggestion of violence, it’s all about me!
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:40 amPatterico, Is this meant to imply that had the Trump admin been competent it would have worked?
In your follow up I would love your opinion of the reasoning behind this question:
Is the court picking based on outcomes or is there some principle involved?
Time123 (69b2fc) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:44 amI assuming there was no constitutional challenge to DACA under Obama. Correct?
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:44 amThere was no law underlying daca but whatever man.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:45 amActually this ruling works to Trump’s benefit. He won’t be deporting thousands in the run up to the election, removing it as an election issue. And he has a new punching bag in the Supreme Court.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:52 amNo it tells you there is no point in voting for judges there is no point in the police because a corrupt da like paul howard will savage welcome to the world of nasty brutish and short.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:57 amI love all this winning. I love all this greatness. Let’s keep it.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:02 amYou think chicago is immune from the rising fire
https://mobile.twitter.com/mcbelz/status/1273455164087767040
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:04 amThey decide based on the arguments made and questions asked, which Trump’s admin didn’t go after this from a constitutional perspective. They did it in the most haphazard and lazy way possible, you know, like always.
This is the census case II: the lazying, there’s a process, follow the process. Remember when we told you to follow the process last year, did you forget that happened? Here’s another reminder.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (9878f6) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:06 amNot a lawyer, which is why I linger at this blog, but I simply can’t wrap my head around the SC saying DACA is unconstitutional, but hey, we are keeping it in place because you got rid of it in the wrong way.
If it’s unconstitutional, then it should be rescinded immediately and how it should be rescinded really shouldn’t matter.
Hoi Polloi (dc4124) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:07 amThe point is to dissolve the electorate and select another unburdened with all the baggage of negative rights, e pleb nista.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:10 amIt’s not a surprise that Trump got tripped up when he breached the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Fifteen months ago, the DDID noted Trump’s losing streak in the courts, mostly because of APA issues, and it hasn’t gotten better over time.
The irony remains that Trump got dinged for taking down a “law” that was unconstitutionally established in the first place. David French:
I doubt Trump will do anything about DACA because of its popularity, and his people don’t give a rip about procedure, so I doubt they’ll do the work to upend it. The best thing that can happen for DACA is for Congress to pass it into law and have the president sign it.
Paul Montagu (d27749) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:13 amOnce you understand the rule of law, its only the rule of the stromg, that duke raz is the arbiter of your fate, then relax peasant
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:16 amThis is a question I’m struggling with also.
Time123 (235fc4) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:18 amThe two situations (creating and revoking DACA) are dissimilar from the viewpoint of the “dreamers.” In the creation, no individual expectations were affected for ill. In the revoking they were. Now, I don’t really feel this is a sufficient reason for what the Court did, but it IS an argument.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:19 amIts the brezhnev doctrine no prog decision be upended,
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:21 amIt will be interesting to see how the Court reacts should Trump be re-elected. Courts will often defer to the popular will, at least to an extent. Then again they may see themselves as a bulwark against a lawless administration. That latter would be a change from recent years though.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:22 amIf it’s unconstitutional, then it should be rescinded immediately and how it should be rescinded really shouldn’t matter.
I guess that wasn’t the question they were asked.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:22 amThere was no law underlying daca but whatever man.
This is why I smirk when I hear the august refrain of “Rule of Law.”
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:24 amDo you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?
No, they just don’t respect you.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:25 amJust like general flynn didnt lie but the prosecutors did. Whatever.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:25 amWhat they have done has consequences see obergerfelt with that pizza place in indiana
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:27 amIf Congress passed a similar law I would likely support it.
There have been opportunities, too. But too many hold out for something comprehensive.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:28 amnk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:39 am
The way I see it, one guy was a member of a protected class, the other one, not so much.
felipe (023cc9) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:29 amI like Presidents who don’t get shot down by the Supreme Court.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:29 amDoesnt matter just like lord fauci, what need we of laws when diviner ferguson and murray have spoken.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:30 amDoesnt matter that diviner ferguson cant abide by his own rules.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:31 amCome on! We were saying this about Jimmy Carter 40 years ago. All he knew was how to win the election. He didn’t know how to do the job once he got it. And this orange failure now is nasty on top of it.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:31 amCongress knows that the Courts will legislate to relieve the pressure, so they can continue to posture for the electorate rather than making the tough choices they are elected to make. A Court that refused to accommodate the politicians like this would be refreshing.
“Illegal immigrants must be deported with all deliberate speed” would maybe get some action, but short of that why should Congresstwits stick their necks out?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:32 amfelipe @27. I thought orange was the new black.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:33 amHow dare you say illegal, its so arbitrary,
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:35 amThe law doesnt matter, its whatever the media deems to ‘be on the right side of history’ and the clerks dutifully regurgitate.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:42 amIts like judge crane of gotham, you have a choice of death or exile.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:44 amYou tell children that america is an abomination, and they will act accordingly.
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:47 amRipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:40 am
Well, he is the POTUS, and the loss maybe had something to do with him, someway*”
* You heard it here, first.
SOMEWAY
[səmˌwā]
ADVERB
to a contrived extent or by a tortured route.
felipe (023cc9) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:47 am“he was responsible someway since then” · “he managed the crisis someway”
synonyms:
obviously · certainly · unsurprisingly
I look to the future and the future looks like road warrior, demolition man and strange days (i had to be topical)
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:50 amUnspeakable cruelty cannot be justified. Not for slavery where human beings were shipped here against their will or, in this case, where people who grew up here may be deported to a country that they do not know. That is not justice.
As for who did what and when? I am not a lawyer and cannot argue DACA’s legal legitimacy… but morally repugnant laws and orders should be overturned. These innocent people are pawns in this disgusting political game.
noel (4d3313) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:52 amRipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:52 am
Quite right. I believe no one works harder at turning lemons into lemonade than Trump.
felipe (023cc9) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:54 amWhen the ruler lacks virtue, it angers Heaven, and the people suffer. — The Throne, 2015
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:55 amYou’re being too kind to Roberts. Like on the Census, Roberts sided with the Liberal/Leftists because he POLTICALLY favors DACA and opposes Trump. From any originalist or conservative LEGAL standpoint, this decision makes zero sense. Roberts was put on the court to do the exact opposite of what he did here.
Roberts sat by and allowed DACA to be blocked by Appeals Court injunction, then when Trump’s Administration might be over, he punts on whether DACA was illegally created, writes some legal gobbledygook, and keeps DACA in place till Biden can get elected. On the Census question it was the same tactic, write legal micky mouse nonsense that sends the thing back to the Department for more justification, knowing that makes it impossible to get the question on the Census in time.
What a Politician.
rcocean (2e1c02) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:55 am“We wuz robbed” said no winner ever. Trump’s a loser.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:57 ambut morally repugnant laws and orders should be overturned
I find capital gains taxes to be morally repugnant. Therefore, Trump should declare a capital gains tax holiday and direct the IRS to use its scarce enforcement resources on other things. Because reasons.
And of course, this creates expectations and reliance and a future president ordering the laws to be followed needs to hold hearings on their effect.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:58 amHe is bankrupting America, like he bankrupted so many of his businesses.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:59 amYou understand the law doesnt matter just feelings of the proper overlord, they arent to be touched by the law
Narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:59 amnk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:29 am
HAHA! That’s great.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:33 am
Stop it, yer killin’ me! 242 (two for two)
felipe (023cc9) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:00 amPeople have been wailing about Goresuch and been forgetting that Roberts has been stabbing Conservatives in the back ever since the Campaign finance decision. Thanks Bush! Of course, if people remember Bush didn’t want to fight over a Scalia Chief Judgeship, tried to give us unqualified crony Harriet MIers, and DID give us “Moderate Conservative” Roberts because he didn’t want to fight for a Scalia/Rehnquist type conservative. Alarm bells should been going off over Roberts when liberal Arlen Spector loved him. but social conservatives have always been stuck on stupid.
rcocean (2e1c02) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:00 amTrump is about as socially conservative as Xaviera Hollander.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:02 amHe is bankrupting America
American has been bankrupting itself for some time now. The differences is that the GOP does it to fight a war or combat a pandemic. The Democrats do it by crippling business and funding graft.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:03 amTrump is about as socially conservative as Xaviera Hollander.
This part I like. You would prefer Rick Santorum?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:04 amYou would prefer Rick Santorum?
I did, way back when he ran.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:05 amLooking back, the only difference between the two Bushes on judges is that Bush-II was much better at lying to Republican voters about his desire to put “Scalia-like” judges on the SCOTUS. BTW, super-genius Sununu is still trying to shirk any responsibility for putting his friend Souter on the SCOTUS. “Souter lied to me” he wailed. This is AFTER, he claims he told Bush-I to be skeptical of SCOTUS nominees because they will “Lie to get on the Court”. Sununu is best example ever. if a High IQ not equaling real-life smarts.
rcocean (2e1c02) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:06 amTrump is the first POTUS to march in the Pro-life Parade. He’s bent over backwards to assist the Religious conservatives every way he can. He appointed two SCOTUS judges recommended by the Federalist Society and approved by Jeff Sessions.
Its simply irrelevant whether he PERSONALLY is a psalm-singing uber Christian.
rcocean (2e1c02) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:09 amThere’s no reason to believe that Trump’s judicial appointees are going to turn out better than any of his other appointees. If you’re before a Trump-appointed judge, and you have a lawyer from Don McGahn’s firm, you will have an edge, but that’s about all of it, and not for a long time, either.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:11 am@43-
Rip Murdock (212cb2) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:15 amFrom any originalist or conservative LEGAL standpoint, this decision makes zero sense.
Speaking of gobbledygook. Not following the law (in this case the Administrative Procedure Act) to get the result you want is not an originalist or conservative legal principle. This result was entirely predictable.
There’s no reason to believe that Trump’s judicial appointees are going to turn out better than any of his other appointees.
Maybe choose a better thread to make that argument.
If Chief Justice Obamacare intended to make fools of the “trust the establishment” crowd, he couldn’t have done any better.
beer ‘n pretzels (4d266d) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:19 amOh.
Well then.
That changes everything.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:22 amYou already forgot Gorsuch and “girls will be boys and boys will be girls” or is there a quota or something?
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:25 amJohn Roberts; thanks Bushes!
Why have a Congress or an executive, since SCOTUS will make all the decisions anyway. These last 2 decisions are yet another example of SCOTUS writing decisions which are operationally legislation.
Bugg (47841b) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:27 am52, 53 so did I, but only cause Newt quit before Illinois’ 2012 primary.
urbanleftbehind (a22f41) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:29 amTrump is the first POTUS to march in the Pro-life Parade.
He didn’t march. He gave a speech to distract from his impeachment trial. And since he was previously pro-choice, it was for political expediency.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:30 amRoberts has been a real disappointment. He’s results oriented, not law oriented, and should be an advocate, not a justice.
Dustin (d59cff) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:34 am‘America[n] has been bankrupting itself for some time now.’
Reaganomics.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:39 amah the colonels had the right idea,
narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:44 amSeems all SCOTUS did was throw a flag on the play. 15 week penalty; loss of down.
Start the clock and scrimmage again.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:48 amI think you mean the inverse.
Colonel Klink (Ret) (9878f6) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:52 amI don’t think think this is fair or accurate.
I would have liked to see Obamacare overturned, but Roberts’ decision was firmly grounded in precedent concerning statutory construction, and Scalia acknowledged the facts on which it relied (that the individual mandate, viewed as a tax, was undeniably constitutional) during oral arguments.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:52 amRoberts has been a real disappointment. He’s results oriented, not law oriented, and should be an advocate, not a justice.
I think you mean the inverse.
Freudian slip. The truth comes out.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:54 amI think people should read Roberts opinion before deciding it’s baseless.
But that to the side, the hypocrisy of the Republican position is pretty clear. They claim they give a damn about Dreamers, but really wanted the Court to strike down DACA so they could use Dreamers as a hostage they’d be willing to shoot to get some other immigration thing they wanted. Now the Dreamer issue can be decided up or down by Congress and it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of Americans want the Dreamers to be protected.
And now a bunch of people who’ve been living in the U.S. since they were children won’t have to wake up each day and face the prospect of their arbitrary and capricious deporting to a country they know nothing about by an arbitrary and capricious Trump administration.
Victor (a225f9) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:58 amThoughts on the Supreme Court’s Sound, but Very Narrow Ruling on DACA
The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts concludes that the administration’s rescission of DACA was illegal, because it violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that federal agency decisions may not be “arbitrary and capricious.” As Roberts recognizes, this is a very permissive standard. But, in this case, the Department of Homeland Security fell short of it because its rationale for ending DACA relied on the notion that the program’s work authorization and law presence provisions are illegal, while failing to offer any justification for abolishing its central feature—”forbearance” from deportation….
……
If anything qualifies as “arbitrary and capricious,” it is failure to provide a rationale for repealing the policy “at the heart” of the program the administration wanted to rescind.
….
The Department of Homeland Security did offer some policy rationales for rescinding forbearance on deportation in a memorandum issued many months after its initial decision to rescind. However, the Court concludes that the APA requires the agency to put forward its reasons at the time a policy change is made. Thus, the arguments in the later DHS memorandum “can be viewed only as impermissible post hoc rationalizations and thus are not properly before us.”
…..
The majority opinion also concludes that the administration failed to properly consider the “reliance interests” of DACA recipients, in making its rescission decision.
…..
….It does not prevent Trump or a future president from rescinding DACA in the future. Indeed, as a legal matter, doing so would be relatively easy. All Trump would have to do is have DHS issue a new rescission memorandum that explicitly cites some policy rationale for abolishing forbearance on deportation. Alternatively, it could potentially abolish employment authorization and “lawful presence,” while leaving forbearance alone.
……
The main constraint on the administration’s options here is political, not legal. DACA is a very popular program, and even a president as hostile to immigration as Trump might not want to abolish it in a way that requires the administration to explicitly say they want to deport the Dreamers, as opposed to hiding behind technical legal arguments. Perhaps the administration is unwilling to pay that political price, especially in an election year.
Political considerations aside, the narrowness of the ruling and the ease with which the administration could potentially get around it should allay concerns that the decision will make it difficult for future presidents to reverse predecessor’s executive actions. They can still do so as long as they meet fairly minimal procedural standards.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 11:01 am……
Trump claims he made Juneteenth ‘famous,’ in defiant interview: ‘Nobody had ever heard of it’
President Trump in an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday defended his response to the coronavirus pandemic and the protests against racism — while claiming he “made Juneteenth very famous” by initially scheduling a campaign rally on that day.
“I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said in the interview. “It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 11:14 am…..
In the interview, Trump said he learned of the importance of the holiday from a black Secret Service agent, as he was facing criticism for his original rally plans. ……
…..
Trump said unlike the Juneteenth rally, he had not asked his black supporters or the Secret Service agent for their thoughts on changing the names of the 10 Army bases named after Confederate officers.
……
No I meant it how I put it. Roberts can find an argument to reach a result he wants, for example on whether the insurance mandate is a tax, or whether DACA is the law or not. That’s a great skill for an advocate.
The truth that for the most part, the justices should all be following the same general reasoning, predictably. If you change the facts, the topic, the parties, the winners, the losers, the reasoning and law should be more or less the same from all nine Justices.
The creative reasoning is a skill for advocates, not jurists. Or it should be.
You do not know how Roberts will explain his next decision. Maybe you’ll agree with it or not, maybe you like dreamers this time and dislike some other party the next time. But you have no idea what reasoning Roberts will employ.
Dustin (d59cff) — 6/18/2020 @ 11:20 am“I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said in the interview. “It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”
So typical of the guy who lives in his New York, Florida, and now Washington DC bubbles. Since he hadn’t heard of the holiday, apparently in his mind nobody had heard of the holiday. In point of fact, the town in which I grew up celebrated Juneteenth every year with a festival in one of the city’s parks, despite the fact that our town’s population was no more than 3% African-American. I think some of the black families in my town were descendants of freed slaves who then migrated northward from Texas, so that’s why the holiday was known in my hometown.
JVW (1af3db) — 6/18/2020 @ 12:00 pman example of the wisdom of our overlords,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/dr-fauci-confirms-early-in-pandemic-america-was-lied-to-about-face-masks/
mishandled hiv, hini, sars, east nile, but just enlarge the problem shut the whole (redacted ) country down,
narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 12:25 pmJust another turd-encrusted remnant of 0bama’s Reign of Error. And the legacy of George W. Bush…
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/18/2020 @ 12:28 pmIANAL.
As far as I can tell, the majority opinion is that Sessions, Nielsen, and Duke lawyered badly and then their lawyers at the Court also lawyered badly and so they mucked up their procedures and then failed to prove their case.
The dissent opinion seems to be: I don’t like DACA, it’s illegal and we need to get rid of it.
But they weren’t asked to decide whether the program is illegal and needs to be gotten rid of, they were asked to decide if proper procedures were followed.
IMO, you can’t just decide the proper procedures were or were not followed just because you do or do not like the program.
Reading the considerations of the majority opinion, it looks like the actual reality of the procedures and the government responses or lack there of to courts requesting they correct their incorrect actions were very seriously analyzed, where that does not appear to be the case in the minority opinions, which are more focused on whether or not that judge happens to think DACA is proper (a thing they were not asked to decide). Since what they were asked to decide was, in fact, the procedures, it looks to me like the majority opinion was more correct (or at least more thoroughly and conscientiously topical to the case) than the minority opinions.
I would say, having read all of the opinions, that the people being political instead of lawyerly were Sotomayer, Thomas, and Alito.
Nic (896fdf) — 6/18/2020 @ 12:52 pmDid anyone sue based on the constitutionality of DACA? Seems like that would have been a way to get rid of it, and limit executive power at the same time. Win/Win
Time123 (235fc4) — 6/18/2020 @ 1:02 pmFacebook removes Trump ads with symbol once used by Nazis to designate political prisoners
Facebook on Thursday deactivated dozens of ads placed by President Trump’s reelection campaign that included a symbol once used by the Nazis to designate political prisoners in concentration camps.
The marking appeared as part of the campaign’s online salvo against antifa and “far-left groups.”
A red inverted triangle was first used in the 1930s to identify Communists, and was applied as well to Social Democrats, liberals, Freemasons and other members of opposition parties. The badge forced on Jewish political prisoners, by contrast, featured a yellow triangle overlaid by a red triangle so as to resemble a Star of David.
The red triangle appeared in paid posts sponsored by Trump and Vice President Pence, as well as by the “Team Trump” campaign page.
….
Although certain symbols the Nazis deployed have been reclaimed, including the pink triangle used in concentration camps to label gay inmates, the red triangle has not been recast in a similar way, said Jacob S. Eder, a historian of modern Germany at the Barenboim — Said Akademie in Berlin.
“I think it’s a highly problematic use of a symbol that the Nazis used to identify their political enemies,” he said. “It’s hard to imagine it’s done on purpose, because I’m not sure if the vast majority of Americans know or understand the sign, but it’s very, very careless, to say the least.”
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 1:07 pm…..
That’s what Prof. Vladeck is saying, and he’s right. But this is the Supreme Court. they understand that Obama’s pen is not an act of congress.
Dustin (d59cff) — 6/18/2020 @ 1:07 pmCoronavirus cases spike across the country, with Florida showing signs of the next epicenter
Ten states saw a record number of new Covid-19 cases this week, and one of them could be the next epicenter of the pandemic.
Florida reported 3,207 additional coronavirus cases on Thursday — the largest single-day count in the state since the pandemic, according to the Florida Department of Health. Florida’s total reported cases climbed to nearly 86,000, according to data.
…..
Florida joins nine other states — Alabama, Arizona, California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas — that are seeing record-high seven-day averages of new coronavirus cases per day, according to a CNN analysis of data from Johns Hopkins University.
…..
Twenty-three states are seeing an upward trend in new coronavirus cases, and health experts continue to stress the importance of taking precautions to reduce the virus’s spread.
Despite the rising number of cases, the White House has downplayed the risks, with President Donald Trump saying Wednesday in an interview with Gray TV that the virus is “dying out.”
…..
States reporting spikes in new cases will have to re-implement “significant levels of social distancing” to contain the spread, Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine, told CNN’s New Day on Thursday.
“We’ve never finished the first wave,” Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine, said of spikes in new cases in Florida, Texas and Arizona. “We didn’t complete that social distancing period that we needed to do.”
Models showed states needed to extend stay-at-home orders through May, according to Hotez.
“Things opened up prematurely,” he said.
RipMurdock (d2a2a8) — 6/18/2020 @ 1:12 pm……
@79 One of the things the majority opinion points out repeatedly is that both sides agree that Duke had the legal right to act on Session’s determination, the argument comes in how they did it.
Nic (896fdf) — 6/18/2020 @ 1:21 pmDid anyone sue based on the constitutionality of DACA? Seems like that would have been a way to get rid of it, and limit executive power at the same time.
I think there were some suits filed along these lines at the same time that GOP members of Congress were successfully challenging the Obama Administration’s even more awful DAPA program in court. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the Trump Administration’s Executive Order about DACA was seen by the courts as rendering those suits moot. It probably would have been best if the Supreme Court had also folded in questions as to wether or not the original DACA order was Constitutional, but as we have seen the Chief Justice does not like to weed too deeply into partisan politics.
JVW (1af3db) — 6/18/2020 @ 2:13 pm@69, “but Roberts’ decision was firmly grounded in precedent concerning statutory construction, and Scalia acknowledged the facts on which it relied (that the individual mandate, viewed as a tax, was undeniably constitutional) during oral arguments”
Too little was briefed on whether the tax should or should not be viewed as a direct tax that required apportionment. Roberts kind of waved his hand that direct taxes are only capitations…but that’s a leap….and is a big conclusion for a saving construction. Again, this is a stealth way to cover regulatory penalties on economic inactivity. I’m dead against Roberts’ conclusion from Drexel. Arbitrarily setting a threshold somewhere below the cost of the “activity” is a cynical way of looking at economic freedom and refusing to engage a market. Having to create a new “Roberts’ tax” to save the statute was disappointing……
AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 6/18/2020 @ 2:34 pmhmm
https://legalinsurrection.com/2020/06/celebrity-backed-jail-bail-fund-has-spent-less-than-1-bailing-out-protesters-and-rioters/
narciso (7404b5) — 6/18/2020 @ 3:21 pm“I did something good: I made Juneteenth very famous,” Trump said in the interview. “It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”
Correction: No white people had ever heard of it.
noel (4d3313) — 6/18/2020 @ 4:08 pmWell. No white, pompous, race-baiting narcissists had ever heard of it. For the most part.
noel (4d3313) — 6/18/2020 @ 4:13 pmCalm down, noel. Time for some reflection and gin.
noel (4d3313) — 6/18/2020 @ 4:25 pmThe Las Vegas shooter made bump stocks famous, too. And how many Southerners knew what the Greek word for “circle” was before the Ku Klux Klan? Credit where credit is due.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 4:40 pmIronically, a week or two before Captain Covid announced his death rally, I noticed an event called Juneteenth on my Outlook calendar and wondered what it was.
Considering that history has been my principal hobby for almost 50 years, I’m a bit embarrassed that I had never heard of it.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 4:45 pmOne thing to note here that seems to be overlooked: on the Equal Protection argument against rescission, everyone, including RBG except Sotomayor said no.
Kishnevi (c31a74) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:20 pmDave,
Don’t feel too bad. I majored in history, and I don’t recall ever hearing the term “Juneteenth”.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:37 pmIf Kavanaugh had joined Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch on the position that Obama’s Executive Order was void ab initio, they might have gotten Roberts to go along. But that would also have been a successor President voiding his predecessor’s EOs just on his say-so without process. I wonder how hard the DOJ pushed it, if at all.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:38 pm@92,
Good point, Kishnevi. There should be a word for being on the losing end of an 8-1 decision, but I’m not clever enough to come up with one.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:39 pmnorcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:39 pm
Schlimazel? A Rogue robe.
felipe (023cc9) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:52 pmRogue robe. Good one!
I just learned a new word that might fit the bil: offscoured.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 5:57 pmWow. You make Goebbels proud with your propaganda. It’s antifa that uses the Nazi triangle in their messaging and perfectly accurate to label them accordingly.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/big-tech-makes-war-on-the-right.php
NJRob (16419d) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:00 pmOr, similarly, offscouring.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:01 pmWise Latina.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:03 pm@100,
That’s hysterical!
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:08 pmCan daca people beat the snot of the white trash anti-fa never trumpers?
mg (8cbc69) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:23 pmif so give them Cantafordya for starters.
DACA is unconstitutional. Saturday Night Live even did a skit about it, for crying out loud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0
Rule of Law, anyone?
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 6:32 pmDeferred action, and the provision allowing those subject to it to receive work permits at the discretion of executive branch, was put on the books by Reagan.
That doesn’t make it good policy, but it wasn’t invented by Obama.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 7:00 pmDave,
Obama said his EO was unconstitutional. Plain as day. Why you always feel the need to run interference for him is beyond me.
But it’s something you do time and time again.
NJRob (8ecd12) — 6/18/2020 @ 7:14 pm@98-
Wow. You make Goebbels proud with your propaganda.
Blaming the messenger? It’s a news story of something that happened, unless you have alternative facts.
Leave it to NJRob to invoke Godwin’s Law in one stroke.
Rip Murdock (212cb2) — 6/18/2020 @ 7:17 pmObama never said his DACA EO was unconstitutional, Rob.
(The dishonest PJ Media talking points you’re going to try to cite to back up your claim are about comprehensive immigration reform, not DACA, were all made a year or more before DACA, and don’t say a word about deferred action).
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 7:55 pmDave,
Thank you for giving me the left’s opinion on Obama’s unconstitutional act
NJRob (8ecd12) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:16 pmI appreciate it.
Dave,
The PJ Media article does not deliver on what the headline claims.
That said, I’m not sure it says only what you say either.
I don’t have a lot of time to take it point by point, but do you really think every example is consistent with your characterization? I don’t. It seems to me as though the quotes are closer to the PJ Media characterization as a whole than to yours.
Patterico (115b1f) — 6/18/2020 @ 8:59 pmQuestion: What limits are there to executive orders that grant hitherto denied rights contrary to law? DO you just need a good rationalization? Could Trump tell the IRS to ignore the alternative minimum tax rules?
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:23 pmDave,
You are correct in that the executive branch used deferred action prior to Obama, but it was used more narrowly and for much smaller groups of aliens; it wasn’t a means of getting around Congress. DACA was a massive waiving of the wand, and it came about because Congress would not give Obama what he wanted.
It’s analogous to Reagan executing a military action in Grenada without declaring war versus FDR launching WWII without declaring war.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:30 pmThis btw is the real reason why I wish that Trump would leave the scene. Not only is he incapable of delivering on anything he claims to stand for, but his bluster and tantrums make anything he stands for toxic for those who COULD deliver. Even judges he appoints are appalled and unlikely to stand with him.
The only people who benefit from this president are the Democrats, who are watching own-goal after own-goal with poorly hidden glee.
I wish that he’d deprive us of his genius, since we are clearly undeserving, and retire back to Trump Tower and hope for a pardon.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:30 pmwithout a Congressional declaration of war
is what I meant
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:32 pmhis bluster and tantrums make anything he stands for toxic
This.
He’s like Midas, except that instead of turning what he touches into gold, he turns it into pig iron.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/18/2020 @ 9:35 pmIn those 2010-11 quotes, Obama was talking about comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act to largely Democratic audiences sympathetic to both. And while the DREAM Act dealt with the same people as DACA, its centerpiece was a path to permanent residence (and the groups he was talking to wanted it to be citizenship instead).
Obama correctly said he could not grant either of those by fiat, and indeed he never tried to. He was arguing in favor of legislative solutions by pointing out that he could not make law by decree.
What he eventually did with DACA was far more limited. DACA did not grant anyone a path to permanent status, and it required re-applying every two years and meeting other criteria. Obviously, as an executive order, there was no assurance the policy would continue in future administrations. I think Obama would say that DACA was a poor substitute for what he was trying to get congress to do in 2011.
There is also, predictably, some selective quotation in the PJ Media piece.
From #5:
None of that was included by PJM.
From #6:
The part in bold was omitted.
From #9:
The part in bold was omitted.
From #10:
None of that was included on PJM. Reading the full quotes in context, Obama often conceded that while he couldn’t solve the problems by fiat, he could do things at the margins through enforcement priorities.
Clearly Obama wanted legislation. He knew that Republican votes would be necessary, and he was trying to take a moderate position vis-a-vis executive action. Politically, that seems like a smart strategy; although it failed, he had no better alternative.
In the final analysis, Obama did not create deferred action or giving people subject to it work permits. That went into the Federal Register in 1987, during the Reagan administration. It is not a statute, but it was administrative law for 25 years before DACA.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:21 pmThat’s not actually true.
In fact, it was created in 1987, under the name of Family Fairness, to deal with large numbers of people who were left in limbo by the Immigration Reform and Control Act passed the year before:
(emphasis added)
The program was further expanded “significantly” in 1990, before being superceded by legislation passed later that year:
There were about 689,000 DACA recipients in 2017. Although I didn’t find any statistics for the size of expanded Family Fairness program in 1990, the numbers sound comparable (say within a factor of two or three), and DACA seems a lot more narrow than “most spouses and children of legalized individuals”.
Also, many of the beneficiaries of the Family Fairness program actually broke the law themselves in coming to the United States, while the beneficiaries of DACA did not.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:41 pmWhat the president did or didn’t say about an executive order 2 years before it existed is not a matter of opinion.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/18/2020 @ 10:59 pmWouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t elect Presidents just to undo the acts of the preceding President? That’s no way to run a country. In fact, it’s deplorable.
nk (1d9030) — 6/18/2020 @ 11:31 pmWouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t elect Presidents just to undo the acts of the preceding President? That’s no way to run a country. In fact, it’s deplorable.
If presidents were not given so much power and deference, maybe it wouldn’t be necessary. Making that point so vivid might be Trump’s real gift to the nation.
Kevin M (ab1c11) — 6/18/2020 @ 11:48 pmLeaving office will be Trump’s real gift to the nation.
Dave (1bb933) — 6/19/2020 @ 12:56 amDave,
You make some good points. However, I still think DACA was a larger abuse of executive power, both in terms of numbers and principle. DACA wasn’t created to take care of a temporary oversight by Congress. It was done to usurp Congress. Obama didn’t even think he had the authority to order DACA, until Janet Napolitano talked him into it.
norcal (a5428a) — 6/19/2020 @ 1:53 amRoberts is a conservative who can see further then his nose. If he votes to send these little brats back kicking and screaming to sh*t hole countries they don’t know being raised american they won’t last long. They will die be killed or sexually assaulted. When the democrats take power and they will the bedraggled survivors will be brought back joyously kissing the ground in thanks. Their corporate masters will tell pelosi and schumer lets forgive and forget about it. AOC, Omar and the latinx caucus will tell them to get out of the way why they “deal” with trump and his crew. Roberts knows this and doesn’t want it to happen to him.
asset (6e146e) — 6/19/2020 @ 2:25 amroberts would never get elected dog catcher, anywhere. Justice pos.
mg (8cbc69) — 6/19/2020 @ 2:41 am123 he doesn’t need too!
asset (6e146e) — 6/19/2020 @ 2:51 amIf presidents were not given so much power and deference, maybe it wouldn’t be necessary. Making that point so vivid might be Trump’s real gift to the nation.
I suggest that Roberts feels the same way you do. Why should a President be allowed to declare his predecessor’s executive orders and regulations illegal and unconstitutional just on his own sayso without process or review? Especially an orange President who peels bananas with his feet.
nk (1d9030) — 6/19/2020 @ 4:05 amIn 1-2-3 Tom Cotton must be silenced.
mg (8cbc69) — 6/19/2020 @ 4:14 amTom Cotton is what you find when you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park.
nk (1d9030) — 6/19/2020 @ 4:22 amthe blue dress crowd with stains is appropriate for these times
mg (8cbc69) — 6/19/2020 @ 5:07 amIs the Presidency the Person or the Office? If the Office, shouldn’t there be consistency and coherence from President to President instead of something resembling bipolar disorder?
Is the Presidency the Person or the Law? If the Law, shouldn’t there be process and review when the sitting President undoes the executive order, and the Federal Regulations enacted pursuant to that executive order, of his predecessor?
nk (1d9030) — 6/19/2020 @ 5:18 amThe argument matters. My understanding is that the Trump administration’s argument was
“this is something the president can do and so we decided to change it under our authority.”
and not
“This isn’t within the power of the executive branch so we stopped doing something unconstitutional.”
Time123 (cd2ff4) — 6/19/2020 @ 5:45 amRe DACA, maybe this Texas case can help Trump out.
DRJ (aede82) — 6/23/2020 @ 12:53 pm