Obama calls on Congress to find permanent solution for Dreamers following federal judge ruling

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Former President Obama called on Congress to pass legislation that would provide permanent protections to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors, known as Dreamers, following a ruling issued Friday that blocked new applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

"For more than nine years, DREAMers have watched courts and politicians debate whether they'll be allowed to stay in the only country many of them have ever known. It's long past time for Congress to act and give them the protection and certainty they deserve," Obama said in a tweet on Saturday.

Link to tweet

In a ruling issued on Friday, a federal judge in Texas blocked new applications for the DACA program, saying the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act "with the creation of DACA and its continued operation."

Judge Andrew Hanen's ruling does not affect the status of the more than 600,000 current DACA recipients, who will be allowed to remain in the program and renew their benefits - shielding immigrants from deportation and offering work permits - pending a future order from Hanen himself, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-calls-on-congress-to-find-permanent-solution-for-dreamers-following-federal-judge-ruling/ar-AAMgxPe

[WHITT]

1. The Dissenters @ SCOTUS

already lost this argument, but leave it to your lower-court whackos to beat a dead horse.

[FBaggins]

2. No they didn't

SCOTUS did not rule DACA constitutional. They merely ruled that Trump violated the APA when he shut it down unilaterally. In fact… there appears to be near unanimity that he had the authority to shut it down.

Obama is pushing for Congress to act here because:

1 - such a policy should come from Congress anyway
2 - it’s a good issue for Democrats
3 - The chances of winning on appeal aren’t great no matter how whacky the judge is.

[WHITT]

3. Yes They Did

The SCOTUS dissenters, as part of their argument, ALSO argued exactly what this nutjob judge just ruled, that it was illegal for Obama to create DACA in the first place. They lost.

[FBaggins]

4. Sorry. That's flat untrue. The argument didn't lose

In order for an argument to lose, there have to be five votes that disagree with it. Dissenters may have argued that DACA was unconstitutional and should just be overturned. But there weren't five votes disagreeing with that... in fact, there weren't any votes disagreeing with that. So you can't say that it "lost".

The majority merely said that this question wasn't before them and thus didn't need to be answered. That is not at all the same thing as saying that if the question were before them, the majority would disagree.

Note, for instance, that they never undid the 5th circuit's rationale that this ruling relies on. This isn't "beating a dead horse" since the 5th will almost certainly maintain their existing rulings... and SCOTUS may not even take it up.

[WHITT]

6. See Below

[WHITT]

5. Check The Documents

Max saved me from digging them up from last year. He attached it to his second tweet:

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

7. Why not check the actual documents?

Nowhere does SCOTUS “uphold“ DACA. If they had, this case would have been dismissed as part of that ruling.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation for its action.'

Personal injury lawyers aren’t great sources for analyzing SCOTUS rulings, but this doesn’t present a tough one. The majority opinion will say “our dissenting colleagues argue ‘x’ - but here’s why that’s wrong”. You won’t find that in the DACA ruling when it comes to this question. The reason is simple. That wasn’t an issue before the court.

What was?

The issues raised here are (1)whether the APA claims are reviewable, (2) if so whether the rescission was arbitrary and capricious in vio- lation of the APA, and (3) whether the plaintiffs have stated an equal protection claim.

[WHITT]

8. Which Is Why The Dissenters

bothered to make that argument?

Been there done that. The majority didn't buy it then, but they're all of a sudden gonna buy it now?

Sure.

[FBaggins]

9. You can't claim that the "majority didn't buy it"

When the majority doesn’t even address it.

Feel free to cite anything to the contrary from the ruling.

[WHITT]

10. I Notice

Last edited Sun Jul 18, 2021, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

you didn't address why all the dissenters made the argument in regards to the matter.

On Edit:

Why would the majority address it?

If, for example, the majority was already aware there were not enough votes to grant certiorari for the matter, what would be the point or need to address their dissent?

[FBaggins]

13. Answer #1 - Lack of judicial restraint/modesty

There are a couple of firebrands on either end of the court who are anxious to use the power of the court to get the results that they want. But that isn't how the court is supposed to work (at least in Roberts' eyes). Seperate from whether their argument holds water or not, there are clearly three conservatives who wanted to take the opportunity to undo DACA - whether the issue was properly before them or not.

It's important to note that this isn't at all unusual. In the NY gun club ruling, there were clearly 5+ judges who are ready to strike down such restrictions nationwide on 2A grounds. So New York gave up and changed their rule so that the case would be moot... meaning they would lose, but other similar gun control schemes would live to fight another day. Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas were ready to ignore mootness so that they could make the broader ruling, but we can't read the majority opinion as disagreeing on the 2A fundamentals... they just didn't agree that the case in front of them required answering that question. And the court shouldn't reach for broad stroke rulings when narrow rulings answer the legal question in front of them.

Same thing in the Philadelphia adoption case this year. It would be wrong to read that Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch "lost" the argument re: religious freedom vs. nondescrimination rights. There are pretty clearly five votes ready to rule that way in a straight-up clash. It's just that there was a 9-0 ruling to be had if the court exercised restraint and only answered the question that was properly before them.

The lesson to learn here is that when the court says that they aren't answering a given question... it's a mistake to assume that they did, in fact, answer that question just because a couple of them wanted to.

[WHITT]

16. Non Sequitur

Rambling irrelevancies.

[FBaggins]

20. You obviously just have a compulsion to reply even if you have no reply

It's a direct response to the question you claim hadn't been answered.


As for your late edit of the initial question - You obviously don't follow the court. The majority didn't adress it. That was one of the points that you dodged. Your claim is that the majority saw the argument and disagreed with it... but that would have been in the ruling. The fact that it wasn't directly contradicts your initial theory that the argument had already been rejected.

That was the point of posts #7 & #9

[FBaggins]

14. Answer #2 - It's the part you aren't noticing that's important

Here's the part you keep missing. This case isn't new. It predates the SCOTUS ruling we're debating. And when that ruling came out, this court asked both sides to weigh in on what the impact to the instant case was. There were lots of attorneys on the pro-DACA side and they made several arguments (like that the case should be postponed because it would surely become moot shortly).

But do you know what they didn't argue? They didn't say "Hey judge! SCOTUS just told you that DACA was legal... so this case should be dismissed!"

And do you know why they didn't argue that? Because it isn't true.

And don't say "well... they just knew that this judge wouldn't listen to that" - because that isn't how it works. If the court had really rejected the dissent on the grounds that DACA was, in fact, lawful... it would be the easiest appeal. Motion to dismiss gets denied... defendants appeal to the 5th circuit... denied with no hearing because the 5th would like to uphold this judge... then instant appeal to SCOTUS which wouldn't even schedule a hearing. They would just say "didn't you read what we said?" and order the case to be dismissed.

Don't believe me? Look at how quickly the same thing happened in the California COVID/church cases. The churches told the court that the recent SCOTUS ruling (Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo) should control in their case and the judge didn't agree. Then the 9th circuit didn't agree. Then it was appealed to SCOTUS and it took them about a week to turn around the "weren't you paying attention?" smackdown

[WHITT]

17. Non Sequitur

Rambling irrelevancies.

[FBaggins]

18. I Notice

that you can't answer the question.

Once again - if your legal theory holds any water at all... if the dissent's take on DACA had already been rejected by SCOTUS... why didn't a single one of the attorneys defending DACA make that argument?

And why aren't the usual court analysts making the argument now? There are plenty of them who recognize that this guy is heavily biased and expected him to rule exactly as he did and who vehemently disagree with it. But none of them are claiming that the rationale behind his ruling had already been rejected.

[WHITT]

15. BTW

Personal injury lawyers aren’t great sources for analyzing SCOTUS rulings

I had already specified the only reason I posted Max's tweet was he had already had the pertinent documents from last year attached, so your personal condescension of a third-party was gratuitous, juvenile, and completely unnecessary.

[FBaggins]

19. The condescension is entirely in your imagination

I was pointing out why we should cut him some slack in not understanding the ruling.

Sometimes we'll see an entirely qualified source make a whacky legal argument because that's their job. We can say that they know better, but not that they aren't qualified to talk about the subject. This isn't one of those cases where he's knowingly making a bad argument.

[BGBD]

11. A lot of arguing here, but

it seems clear that we shouldn't expect this to continue under authority of an EO. It needs to be codified into law.

DACA as it stands has strong favorability in polling. The Dream Act went further but would face more opposition for it's path to citizenship. Put DACA, as it stands with a path to legal status for people brought here as children, up for a vote. Until it's law then everyone under it is going to have a sword hanging over their heads forever.

[WHITT]

12. Good Luck

finding 10 Repub votes.