Supreme Court Upholds DACA

[thebobmaster]

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is a program that allowed children brought into the country illegally to register with the government, and obtain a work permit if their record was clean. Seeing as this is something that helped illegal immigrants, who were also collectively known as Dreamers (you know, entering the country, chasing the American dream), Trump was planning on repealing DACA. Never mind that the children it protected had possibly never known another country, and even if they did, hadn't lived there in years. Never mind that the act only helped those with clean records.

Well, the Supreme Court, despite being majority conservative, apparently agreed...sort of. Essentially, the Supreme Court decided that Trump's given reason for winding down DACA, that creating or maintaining the program exceeded the legal presidential powers, was insufficient. Essentially, "Come up with a better reason, and we might side with you."

Still, this is a setback to Trump, given one of his key campaign promises was immediately ending DACA, so I'm calling it a win.

Trump Can’t Immediately End DACA, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)

The program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protects people brought to the United States as children by shielding them from deportation and letting them work.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Worgen]

Its pretty surprising that they went that way, although it also means that he can just end it in a different way and have it go through, but he probably won't be able to before the election, so another reason to make sure he doesn't somehow manage to stay in.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm inclined to think that Roberts is the more swayable of the conservative judges in as much as he actually seems to have a reaction to majority public sentiment at all. Compared to the vacuous narcissist, Kavanaugh, or the utter absence that is Clarence Thomas, that's damning with faint praise.

 

[Trunkage]

I'm inclined to think that Roberts is the more swayable of the conservative judges in as much as he actually seems to have a reaction to majority public sentiment at all. Compared to the vacuous narcissist, Kavanaugh, or the utter absence that is Clarence Thomas, that's damning with faint praise.

I mean, that’s the best you can expect out of a judge, right. They will be biased in some way. They should follow the constitution as they see it. They should be aware of the public consciousness

 

[meiam]

So the judgment is really not that big of a deal. Essentially it's just saying that the Trump administration didn't file the paperwork correctly and if they just try again and do a better job it'll be a okay. If anything this might help Trump just a bit more since he'll be able to say that the system is preventing him from doing what he want and that's why not everything is perfect and people need to vote for him again, yadayadaya.

 

[Dalisclock]

So the judgment is really not that big of a deal. Essentially it's just saying that the Trump administration didn't file the paperwork correctly and if they just try again and do a better job it'll be a okay. If anything this might help Trump just a bit more since he'll be able to say that the system is preventing him from doing what he want and that's why not everything is perfect and people need to vote for him again, yadayadaya.

Well, it seems a number of "Conservatives" are pissed at Roberts for not voting the "Right" way which is honestly kind of wierd to watch. Suddenly he's become an "Activist Judge", which only seems to apply to judges conservatives/republicans don't like.

 

[Agema]

So the judgment is really not that big of a deal. Essentially it's just saying that the Trump administration didn't file the paperwork correctly and if they just try again and do a better job it'll be a okay. If anything this might help Trump just a bit more since he'll be able to say that the system is preventing him from doing what he want and that's why not everything is perfect and people need to vote for him again, yadayadaya.

Yes, that appears to be my reading, too.

Apparently, by the Administrative Procedure Act, executive orders and regulations must be supplied with a sufficient justification, the point being as far as I can see to block arbitrary use of power:

1. to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules;
2. to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, for instance through public commenting;
3. to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication;
4. to define the scope of judicial review.

By failing to provide an adequate reason, Trump has been found in breach; this deficit included a lack of consideration of the huge impact the change would have on a large number of people, for which the administration had seemingly failed to provide any plan or provision to deal with.

This ruling does, however, go to reinforcing the notion that this administration is basically incompetent: they can't even get rid of a executive order that is arguably unconstitutional in the first place.

 

[Dalisclock]

This ruling does, however, go to reinforcing the notion that this administration is basically incompetent: they can't even get rid of a executive order that is arguably unconstitutional in the first place.

Well, when you keep firing all the competent people because they're not loyal enough or they resign out of frustration(such as Mattis and Kelly), shit like this is bound to happen.

Then again, It doesn't matter how good they are if you don't actually listen to them because you listen to your gut over experts. Which is how we get shit like the President of the US talking about drinking bleach on live TV.

In 20 years, people are gonna see videos from this administration and think they're political satire. Assuming the country/world hasn't burned down by then.

 

[Tireseas]

Yes, that appears to be my reading, too.

Apparently, by the Administrative Procedure Act, executive orders and regulations must be supplied with a sufficient justification, the point being as far as I can see to block arbitrary use of power:

By failing to provide an adequate reason, Trump has been found in breach; this deficit included a lack of consideration of the huge impact the change would have on a large number of people, for which the administration had seemingly failed to provide any plan or provision to deal with.

This ruling does, however, go to reinforcing the notion that this administration is basically incompetent: they can't even get rid of a executive order that is arguably unconstitutional in the first place.

There's also a taking's clause issue (which is inherently related to the APA even if it's not explicitly mentioned) as there is a general tenant of US jurisprudence that a person who has received rights cannot generally have them taken away without due process, even if the rights themselves were granted improperly. The textbook case is usually a welfare recipient that approved by error, which meant that the government had to go through a notice and hearing to end their payments. The administrative rule-making process essentially is this on a macro level, so the same principles generally stand.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm inclined to think that Roberts is the more swayable of the conservative judges in as much as he actually seems to have a reaction to majority public sentiment at all. Compared to the vacuous narcissist, Kavanaugh, or the utter absence that is Clarence Thomas, that's damning with faint praise.

I mean, that’s the best you can expect out of a judge, right. They will be biased in some way. They should follow the constitution as they see it. They should be aware of the public consciousness

Why should we want judges to make decisions based on public sentiment?

 

[Agema]

Why should we want judges to make decisions based on public sentiment?

Because if they totally ignore it, they can bring the law into disrepute.

The courts need to be neutral arbiters for the most part, but they also need to have a reasonable relationship with the public and serve the communal interest, otherwise they can become agents of ruin, and the community will turn on them and the law.

There are numerous ways public sentiment can be built into legal systems. The US way of political appointments effectively means that judges are appointed to serve their constituents' sentiments - that's a "works as designed" part of the system. We could take the range of sentencing available, where the judge may choose leniency or severity ("make an example of"). This is tricky as it can be a source of injustice, but it does allow judges some room to take into account public sentiment, and they do.

More perhaps in the realm of policy than public sentiment per se, judges may also need to recognise at some points that carrying out the law without wider reference to policy and societal need may lead to forms of severe failure. A judge may reason that flexibility is preferable to causing havoc, that obscure or specious interpretations to inflict heavy negative societal ramifications or wreck major government policy is inappropriate.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Because if they totally ignore it, they can bring the law into disrepute.

The courts need to be neutral arbiters for the most part, but they also need to have a reasonable relationship with the public and serve the communal interest, otherwise they can become agents of ruin, and the community will turn on them and the law.

There are numerous ways public sentiment can be built into legal systems. The US way of political appointments effectively means that judges are appointed to serve their constituents' sentiments - that's a "works as designed" part of the system. We could take the range of sentencing available, where the judge may choose leniency or severity ("make an example of"). This is tricky as it can be a source of injustice, but it does allow judges some room to take into account public sentiment, and they do.

More perhaps in the realm of policy than public sentiment per se, judges may also need to recognise at some points that carrying out the law without wider reference to policy and societal need may lead to forms of severe failure. A judge may reason that flexibility is preferable to causing havoc, that obscure or specious interpretations to inflict heavy negative societal ramifications or wreck major government policy is inappropriate.

So you believe that when judges ruled in favor of lynch mobs or other racist actions that they were right because they're just "serving the communal interest"?

 

[Avnger]

So you believe that when judges ruled in favor of lynch mobs or other racist actions that they were right because they're just "serving the communal interest"?

Try re-reading Agema's post again. Slowly this time. The only way you could pull that belief out of it is to purposefully misinterpret it.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Try re-reading Agema's post again. Slowly this time. The only way you could pull that belief out of it is to purposefully misinterpret it.

No I don't think so, maybe you should try explaining.

 

[Buyetyen]

So you believe that when judges ruled in favor of lynch mobs or other racist actions that they were right because they're just "serving the communal interest"?

You're right. They should go with strictly originalist Constitutional interpretations and disregard every amendment that those god damn pussies in the legislature wrote in to appease the mob, like abolishing slavery.
/s

 

[Agema]

So you believe that when judges ruled in favor of lynch mobs or other racist actions that they were right because they're just "serving the communal interest"?

You could hardly respond to my comment more deliberately unconstructively.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You could hardly respond to my comment more deliberately unconstructively.

The point I was trying to make is, what do you believe is and is not allowed to be interpreted by judges and what do you consider to be good social pressures on these judges and bad pressures? My issue is that I would like to hope we could make laws that would solve a potential issue that even has an example all the way back in the bible.

 

[Buyetyen]

The point I was trying to make is, what do you believe is and is not allowed to be interpreted by judges and what do you consider to be good social pressures on these judges and bad pressures? My issue is that I would like to hope we could make laws that would solve a potential issue that even has an example all the way back in the bible.

Forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, but... why? Why the bible, why that far back? Why do laws of the land today need to solve potential issues in another part of the world thousands of years ago? It just seems like a really odd specification. Did I overlook some part of the conversation that would give this context or...?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, but... why? Why the bible, why that far back? Why do laws of the land today need to solve potential issues in another part of the world thousands of years ago? It just seems like a really odd specification. Did I overlook some part of the conversation that would give this context or...?

???? The Bible part is just an example of it being something that was known to happen a long time ago. You're zeroing in on a very odd part.

 

[Buyetyen]

???? The Bible part is just an example of it being something that was known to happen a long time ago. You're zeroing in on a very odd part.

I don't know, it just seemed kind of arbitrary.