4 ms·

Man, that opinion is a bunch of bull. If one President does something and another wants to undo it, they can't just leave everyone effected by it in a lurch, e

Man, that opinion is a bunch of bull. If one President does something and another wants to undo it, they can't just leave everyone effected by it in a lurch, even if DACA was brought to the courts and ruled unconstitutional, it would still be the responsibility of the executive to deal with the people affected by it.

diebeforei485 6y ago
"Deal with" people affected by it - for how long? If they gave everyone say an extra year to get one more renewal in, and allowed even more time for specific cases (people serving a tour of duty in the military, or people who are in college, or people going through medical treatment), would that be sufficient? The majority opinion suggests it would be sufficient (pages numbered 25-26). After all, a program created by the administrative branch can be ended by the administrative branch.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  The main difference between Thomas's opinion and the majority's seem to be that Thomas thinks the Obama administration didn't have authority to implement DACA, whereas the majority doesn't seem to want to rule on that, but doesn't believe that the government can just pull the rug out from underneath someone either way. Additionally I'm not sure if "DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion" is as open ended as all Thomas seems to imply. Certainly that discretion itself has to be legal. ex. They couldn't just decide to deport people who don't donate to a political candidate. It has to follow some legal process. IMO it is a failure of the Legislative branch to deal with this.
andrewla 6y ago
This is exactly why the executive should not be responsible for doing this, but instead the slower-moving legislature, so that changing the policy requires Congress to act rather than the whim of the current executive. Congress is utterly unwilling to exercise any power, and instead wants to hand off power to regulatory bodies run by the executive.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  Like it or not, the Executive branch will always need to execute on law. Every action they take is a balancing act between responsibilities. It is up to the executive to prioritize the resources. If the legislature tried to write laws that cover those kind of contingencies it would be ludicrous, a tremendous waste of time, and certainly a separation of powers issue.

diebeforei485 6y ago

"Deal with" people affected by it - for how long? If they gave everyone say an extra year to get one more renewal in, and allowed even more time for specific cases (people serving a tour of duty in the military, or people who are in college, or people going through medical treatment), would that be sufficient? The majority opinion suggests it would be sufficient (pages numbered 25-26). After all, a program created by the administrative branch can be ended by the administrative branch.

dariusj18 6y ago
The main difference between Thomas's opinion and the majority's seem to be that Thomas thinks the Obama administration didn't have authority to implement DACA, whereas the majority doesn't seem to want to rule on that, but doesn't believe that the government can just pull the rug out from underneath someone either way. Additionally I'm not sure if "DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion" is as open ended as all Thomas seems to imply. Certainly that discretion itself has to be legal. ex. They couldn't just decide to deport people who don't donate to a political candidate. It has to follow some legal process. IMO it is a failure of the Legislative branch to deal with this.

andrewla 6y ago

This is exactly why the executive should not be responsible for doing this, but instead the slower-moving legislature, so that changing the policy requires Congress to act rather than the whim of the current executive. Congress is utterly unwilling to exercise any power, and instead wants to hand off power to regulatory bodies run by the executive.

dariusj18 6y ago
Like it or not, the Executive branch will always need to execute on law. Every action they take is a balancing act between responsibilities. It is up to the executive to prioritize the resources. If the legislature tried to write laws that cover those kind of contingencies it would be ludicrous, a tremendous waste of time, and certainly a separation of powers issue.