Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire DACA SCOTUS Update

SCOTUS heard oral arguments today in the case of Trump discontinuing DACA. DACA is a popular, but extra-legal policy cooked up and put in place by Obama, with no regard for due process. It allows illegal immigrant children to be here without fear of deportation, and it allows them access to work permits.

Reading the questions asked, it appears that SCOTUS is going to agree that Trump was within his constitutional powers in ending the program, and his decision is not subject to judicial review.

One interesting question is, what will Trump ask Congress to do to replace it?

Another is, will they define a whole set of Executive actions not subject to judicial review? At least a couple of Justices has publicly spoken against the notion that a federal judge anywhere in the system can issue an injunction against an Executive decision.

Winning!

We'll see; that gun ought not be jumped.

Obviously two edge sword.

What are the limits of Executive Action is my concern.

As much as we like Trump he isn't always gonna be in office.

Trump doesn't have to ask congress for anything.

DACA was an administrative action by one president that can be ended by another.

There was no legislation involved from the onset.

Just end it, and start the deportations.

Don't replace it with jack chit.

I agree. But trying to get these idiots in the House and Senate to pass anything besides a huge, pork ridden budget is futile.

From which Justice, I wonder?

FC

if he could use some modified (read more restricted) form of DACA to get a new immigration bill that we would find acceptable, it would be worth it. Of course that will never happen with a Democrat house focused on impeachment. And once impeachment fails, we won't need them. We may need to replace a few Republicans however.

Can't disagree with that.

In reality Constitutional Presidential Power has actually expanded from Washingtons time.

Congressional Critters have seceded at lot of that power for obvious reasons.

DACA was intended to raise up an estimated 800,000 predominantly Democrat voters.

That said, they were illegally brought to this country before they were old enough to have a voice in the matter, and have little to no connection to their home countries or language. So I think we have to do something that is compassionate and reasonable. I just strongly object to Obama making that rule all by himself, without action by Congress.

If they are behaving, and becoming good members of society, I'd say let them stay and work. But vote? Nope. Commit a crime? Off you go.

trump should ask congress to define illegal.

The t.v. said the Court ruling won't happen until June or so.

Yes, that is true. At this point, all we can do is surmise what is going on based on the questions asked.

I believe Rush has not-infrequently suggested they can stay, but can't vote for 25 years. I've not heard the counterargument...

FC

for sure

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And there never should have even been a question that one executive order couldn't be replaced with another executive order.

Maybe logic will finally prevail, I hope, anyway.

MM

Can't vote for 25 years?????

WTF??

They can vote when they become citizens, and not before!

Hard for me to see that happening.

Zero was too gutless to make it more than a memo. An executive order is subject to congressional review. The pos Zero issued a pos memo.

Denton

I'll be interested to see how the liberal justices view the issue of executive orders, and if they try to make a distinction regarding DACA..

The issue regarding nationwide injunctions goes beyond executive orders. Justice Thomas has been quite outspoken regarding his dislike of the growing practice of District Court judges issuing injunctions that go beyond their jurisdictional boundaries.