4 ms·
A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating. "Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but lega
by calvinmorrison 6y ago
A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating.
"Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches. Such timidity forsakes the Court’s duty to apply the law according to neutral principles, and the ripple effects of the majority’s error will be felt throughout our system of self-government."
.
This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare.
Things like DACA _need_ to be written in stone to avoid forcing the supreme court to become the effective legislator instead of having congress pass a law that enacts it as an actual program.
- amznthrwaway 6y ago> This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare. This is an inaccurate summary of the decision. The fact that you gave it, after giving an accurate summary of the dissent is very telling. It indicates that only a fool would trust you on political matters as you are a willful liar who does not respect your audience. I eagerly await your correction and apology. Just kidding, I am fully aware that you have no respect for truth, and that you have no central morality.
- war1025 6y agoThe more I learn about Justice Thomas, the more I like him.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- robertlagrant 6y agoHe walks a difficult path well.
- bilbo0s 6y ago"The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch." In this case, that's exactly what the majority concluded. In layman's terms, this is a decision that says, "We aren't doing a thing. Congress made a promise. If you want to rescind it, go talk to congress, not us."
- leereeves 6y agoCongress didn't make DACA. Obama ordered it by executive memorandum, after a similar Congressional bill, the DREAM Act, failed in Congress.
- bhupy 6y ago> Congress made a promise When exactly did that happen?
- bilbo0s 6y agoCongress created the reservation situation in Oklahoma many, many, many years ago. Not the Supreme Court. If respondents want to undo that promise, they need to take the matter up with congress. That's what the court is saying. You can't short circuit the constitutional order. The court is right to drop this right back in the lap of congress.
- masklinn 6y ago> This was his dissent on DACA. Agree or disagree with the program that allows undocumented immigrants to stay and go to school, I don't care. It's not legislative, it's not judicial, it was a program by DHS setup under the last administration. Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? It's bizzare. It didn't rule that the current administration can't undo the program, it ruled that the administration has to properly justify that decision, and not doing so is unlawful. At no point did it rule on DACA itself, or prevent the administration from providing actual, motivated and legal reasoning for rescinding the program. Also > This was his dissent on DACA. Which corresponds to the majority ruling on this case, yet I can't help but notice Gorsuch joined the liberal justices in the majority, not Thomas.
- twsttest 6y agoHowever DACA itself is unlawful in that it is an Executive Order undermining Federal immigration law, so the administration's rescinding it on the basis of its unlawfulness should be sufficient enough justification. The problem is that the Court's ruling indicates that an EO which subverts existing law cannot be overturned by subsequent administrations simply on the basis of its illegality. Justice Thomas' dissent says exactly this. That's incredibly problematic. According to the recent ruling therefore, a President has the power to issue and EO which prevents the enforcement of certain laws.
- brandmeyer 6y agoI urge you to read the SCOTUS opinion itself, and not just the rhetoric you may have heard in the media about the opinion. Because this: > According to the recent ruling therefore, a President has the power to issue and EO which prevents the enforcement of certain laws is flatly untrue.
- twsttest 6y agoIs it? DACA is unconstitutional in that it prevents enforcement of law yet now it cannot be repealed on the pure basis of its illegality. I want to be wrong, but I don't see how this isn't the precedent being set.
- jcranmer 6y ago> Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program? The court rules that the current administration can't undo it simply by waking up one morning and say "I wish that it be done;" it actually has to go through a process to explain why it is taking the decision it is, which is the same process it had to do to enact the program in the first place.
- belltaco 6y agoWhat? https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/506018-trump-expected-to-refile-paperwork-to-end-daca-this-week https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/506018-trump-exp... It's bizarre to have someone quote a judge's dissenting opinion but not read the main gist of the actual verdict.