Breaking News: Justice Department wants a direct Supreme Court review of DACA


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/01/16/breaking-news-justice-departm.html


#2


#3

Gorsuch would of course recuse himself from this if integrity mattered.

We’ll see how that goes.


#4

Why is that? My quick googling of Gorsuch and DACA came up empty.


#5

#6

Part of me wonders if the regime finally realised how terrible the optics of ripping parents and children apart are in contrast to the “family values” they claim to respect and decided to bring a quick end to it. Either way the court rules, Il Douche can dump that mess in their laps. If they win they can claim the courts support them; if they lose … well, I can imagine the memes they’ll be promoting about those “activist” Latinx and Jewish justices.


#7

Really if the creation of DACA was within President Obama’s authority as head of the Executive Branch, than ditching it is within President Trump’s authority as head of the Executive Branch. I have little respect with those who suddenly decide that “We have always been at war with EastAsia (against Executive Authority).”


#8

My basis for that is that Trump pushed him in a year ago, and so now Trump is appealing to the guy who literally owes his job to Trump.

But I get that this isn’t legally a conflict of interest. Just ethically and morally.

I also get that previous presidents have appointed judges and then argued before them. I personally think it would be good and fair that judges Presidents appoint are recused from answering those cases that come from Presidents’ specific pleas to that court for immediate rulings on the legality of those Presidents’ actions.

But here we are…


#9

Ah, I see. I thought maybe he had specifically done something.
Hopefully the lifetime appointment means he’ll feel no loyalty or debt to Trump.


#10

Unless the DACA was created to end a rights violation, maybe? If there’s a violation of rights, the government is within its authority to design how to fix it, but probably not to just sit there and let it go on.

Once it’s been redressed, subsequent administrations can change how to ensure the right is respected, but they can’t very well go “yeah, we’re just going to go back to violating those rights again.”


#11

I’m not sure if Gorsuch has a particular connection to this issue that would bring integrity in to question. I could definitely see him siding with the Trump administration on this one. His record as a judge shows he is very skeptical of the executive branch acting unilaterally, which is what the Obama administration did when they introduced DACA.

However, for that same reason, I think he is going to end up being a giant pain in Trump’s ass and I would bet money by the end of his term, Gorsuch is going to mess up one of Trump’s pet projects and Trump is going to disavow him just like Bannon and others before him.


#12

Yeah, but which rights violation? There isn’t a right to enter a country illegally.

Look, I am for DACA deferment, and honestly if you are able to make it here illegally for a decade and keep your nose clean, I think we should have some sort of path to get legal. People who were brought here as minors had no say in the matter and should also have options. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with me, and based on what I have read, even if I don’t agree with it, Trump probably has the power to remove DACA. But I guess we shall see.


#13

https://youtu.be/ppIr39fv59o

image


#14

Well people certainly have a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Fourth Amendment doesn’t specify this as a right of citizens. It’s a right of the people, and a limit on government action - the kind of action ICE regularly undertakes.


#15

Federal judges have life tenure for this reason, among others: to prevent them from making rulings favorable to the person who put them in office, under threat of being fired. Other than an internalized sense of fealty, there’s no reason Gorsuch would affirm a Trump plan simply because Trump put him in office.


#16

No, everyone knows that “family values” is just a dogwhistle against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transfolk, and everyone else who isn’t neatly tucked into the Right’s men-on-top dichotomy.

As for deportations – well, care to guess how may Irish are illegally in the USA? How many were deported last year?


#17

For the life of me I can’t think of one good reason why people should oppose DACA or the DREAM Act other than malice and bigotry.


#18

Let’s just say that I doubt too many pub owners in the tri-state area are worried about losing their bartenders and servers in a raid.

But in regard to the … duskier undocumented immigrants:


#19

Due process rights comes to mind. We are talking about an offense which was not committed by their own volition or at an age where they are would have been considered responsible for their actions.


#20

You really don’t think people can believe in the merits of DACA but also believe that the programs, despite their merits, aren’t within the power of the president to enact on his own?

The Dream Act, by the way, isn’t DACA. The Dream Act would have been the preferred way to go about this from the beginning because it wouldn’t have raised a question about executive power.