Supreme Court Provides a Respite for DREAMERS

The Supreme Court today invalidated Donald Trump's order ending President Obama's DACA program for DREAMERS, which provided a two year haven from deportation for children who came to this country without proper papers and met certain criteria. The program did not create a "path to citizenship". However, for the more than 700,000 who enrolled, the two year respite from deportation was renewable.

The Court did not rule on whether the program was lawful or not. It merely held that Trump's order was procedurally invalid because it did not provide enough of a reason for ending DACA. The opinion is here.

We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the four liberal justices to hold that Trump's explanation at the time was inadequate. He's free to try again, but since any grounds he gives will be challenged through the courts, the final resolution will likely be after the November election, so DREAMERS can breathe a sigh of relief today.

< Donald Trump Turns 74 Amid New Questions About His Neurological State | CO Gov Jared Polis Signs Police Reform Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Roberts had no problem (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 08:03:37 AM EST
    With this case ideologically, that's what should worry us.
    He just didn't accept the half assed pretext.

    Roberts is as much a racist hack as the other 4 - he just cares  more about looking stupid.

    After all the things Roberts has done for us (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    That seems a bit uncharitable

    Sure, he is a conservative.  We knew that.  But from the Affordable Care Act to the census to gay rights and marriage to DACA he has delivered.

    I for one see no productive reason to keep kicking him.  We could do so much worse.


    That said (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    I agree with Dahlia Lithwick.

    In both the census and DACA Roberts message seemed to be. If you are going to lie, please, lie better.


    Wonkette (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    John Roberts Would Love To Call Strike For You, Trump, But You Have To Throw Ball Inside The Stadium

    I think you're too kind (none / 0) (#10)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    He gutted the VRA on an embarrassingly facile pretext.
    While I agree we could do worse, I guess I'm tired of that being our standard.

    You are correct about the Shelby County (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    Voting Rights Act decision. That opinion is indefensibly bad (and evil and harmful), in a class with Bush v. Gore, that is, approaching Dred Scott, Korematsu and Bowers v. Hardwick territory. But most of the rest of your criticisms of Roberts are overstated and off the mark.

    Made me lookup Bowers v. Hardwick (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    Has nothing to do with standards (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    He is there.  He is going to be there for 30 years.  Calling him a racist hack who is beyond redemption when he delivers for us when he is getting kicked even harder from the right for delivering for is not productive.  

    However good it may feel.

    Fortunately he does not seem to care much about kicks from either side.


    Fewer friends than Bolton (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 11:12:35 AM EST
    Carrie Severino, president of the conservative group Judicial Crisis Network, told Fox News on Friday that Chief Justice John Roberts is "complicit" in the Supreme Court "being used as a partisan tool" to undermine the Trump administration.

    "What we are starting to see is a pattern of the chief justice unfortunately just being complicit and the court being used as a partisan tool to try to delay and undermine this president's administration in their actions," Severino, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, said on "Fox & Friends."

    Never said he was beyond redemption (none / 0) (#13)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    One can always hope.
    But I do stand by racist. He's been after the VRA since he was a clerk.
    And I stand by hack. His absurd ruling in Shelby was literally that we no longer have racial disparities in America, therefore we no longer need POC voter protections. He was rightfully eviscerated by RBG who said that was akin to "putting away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet."
    Absolutely a hack opinion.

    All he wanted was a fig leaf from Trump and he was prepared to go along. That's terrifying.


    I agree that we (none / 0) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    look at the Chief Justice with a pragmatic eye and that it is unproductive to "keep kicking him."  However, as Mr. Dooley, the fictional barkeep of the sarcastic commentator, Peter Finley Dunn, said over a century ago, "..the Supreme Court follows the election returns."  And, after FDR's ill-fated attempt to expand the Supreme Court up to 15 justices, it happened that a couple of justices has an epiphany so as to see the New Deal in a different light.

    Accordingly, in my view, it is not unreasonable to continue with not only criticisms of any of the Justice's opinions, but also, to assure that they recognize the environment in which statutory interpretations and constitutional matters are decided.  As you note, Chief Justice Roberts will likely be around for a good while.

    And, I believe, in Robert's case, that environment may be registering.  He joined Gorsuch, writing for the majority's holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected sexual orientation and gender identity.

    However, in Windsor (DOMA unconstitutional) Roberts dissented, as he did in Obergefel (same sex marriage).  Indeed, Obergefel, for the first time since joining the Court, Roberts read his dissent for emphasis.

    While I never expect Roberts to become a Harry Blackmun or David Souter, he may, as Chief Justice (unlike the hopeless Thomas and Alito) consider cases before him as if they are being decided in the 21st Century, albeit in baby steps or faced with unlawful or glaringly apparent corner-cutting, dishonesty and capriciousness, as evident in DACA.  

    In ACA, Roberts did save the day, but he did try to find an ersatz middle way by disallowing requirements for states to expand Medicaid.

    The decision on Trump's tax returns will be a test. My hunch is that he will find a way to require their release, but it must be keep to authorized Congressional chairs--as the best case scenario.  We will see.


    There is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:30:43 PM EST
    Between criticizing his opinions and calling him a racist hack.

    But as I said it doesn't seem to matter to him.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:46:59 PM EST
    That was the point I was trying to make. However, Roberts does need to evolve, as they say, in terms of sensitivity and sensibility in questions of race. The voting rights act findings seemed naive. And, his flat-out rejection, in the DACA case, of the plaintiff's claim of racist animus in the recission of the Obama policy was curious. Although, it is understandable in that he did not need to get into that aspect of the case when there was so much more there to come down on.

    There have been a few (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Right wing appointments that did not work out that way.  

    It's to early to know if he is headed in that direction but the trends are pretty good.  VRA notwithstanding

    One thing some people criticize is that he is political in his thinking.

    Obviously that can be bad.  But it can also lead to him thinking about the mood of the country and which way the winds of history is blowing.

    Not always a bad thing.


    And I agree about the (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32:48 PM EST
    Financial records.  There are still some other very important stuff coming soon.

    Faithless electors might also be a window into his predilections


    Good compilation here (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    Of Roberts' partisan leanings

    Also his history of hostility to VRA (none / 0) (#18)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:44:43 PM EST

    His record (none / 0) (#19)
    by smott on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    Is at least as partisan/conservative as Alito, Thomas, Scalia.
    See NYT compilation below.

    The Chief Justice (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 03:02:38 PM EST
    did not cover himself with glory in his handling of the many complaints about Judge/Justice Kavanaugh. Roberts sent the 83 complaints, after confirmation, to the judicial council of the 10th circuit (Denver), a conservative-leaning circuit.  The chief judge, Timothy Tymkovich,  did not recuse himself, despite being on Trump's short list for potential SC nominations. And, Kavanaugh, while working at the WH in 2003, advocated for Tymkovich's judicial confirmation.

    The complaints included allegations of false statements under oath during hearings on his judicial nominations in 2004 and 2006 as well as during the SC nomination, partisan statements during hearings, disrespectful treatment of Democratic members, particularly women members, during confirmation hearings, and a perceived threat: "what goes around comes around."

    The Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit rejected the appeals..."The lack of jurisdiction over Justice Kavanaugh precludes an investigation and fact-finding process, even conduct allegedly committed while Justice Kavanaugh was a covered judge."  The serious matters of 83 complainants were punted.


    That's really not about Roberts (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    Once Kavanaugh was invested as a Justice of the Supreme Court, and was no longer a Judge of the Court of Appeals, the disciplinary complaint system for judges no longer had jurisdiction over him. It did not matter what court the complaints were sent to or who was the chief judge of that court. They all had to be, and were going to be, dismissed.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 04:55:57 PM EST
    that seems to have been the point.  The Chief Justice did not know that?

    Of course he did. He did what the rules (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 10:17:41 PM EST
    require, and referred the complaints to the court with jurisdiction. Knowing that court would dismiss. All according to the rules.

    IMO (none / 0) (#23)
    by jmacWA on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    Roberts is just giving a little in an area that progressives care a lot about now, so that he can continue his ruthless pursuit of the total destruction of voter rights in America.

    Trump wants a riot in Tulsa tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 09:01:51 AM EST

    Donald J. Trump
    Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis. It will be a much different scene!

    He could get one.  There are going to be massive crowds starting today in Tulsa for Juneteenth

    Rev. Al Sharpton is to address (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    the Juneteenth gathering.

    Is there a reason he shouldn't? (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:24:08 PM EST
    I just saw an organizer talking about how it was tense and she was worried.  She said they were going to try to get people to go home soon.

    Trump intervened with the city to get the curfew lifted so his supporters can camp out and in line tonight.

    He wants a violent confrontations notation.  It's becoming clear to just about everyone.

    Sharpton was just saying do not give it to them on tv.  I expect he is saying the same thing to the crowd


    No. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    The police (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    in Tulsa said that they are not going to let Trumpers camp out overnight and they are going to make them move.

    Since when (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    And how do you know this.  I just saw live video of them in line.

    This is from 2:30 (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    My ex lives in Tulsa (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by fishcamp on Sun Jun 21, 2020 at 09:47:59 AM EST
    and she told me the Tulsa fire chief said about 6,500 people showed up at the Trump rally.  None of her friends or large extended family attended.  They are all Republicans.

    Reuters is saying 6200. (none / 0) (#39)
    by desertswine on Sun Jun 21, 2020 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    Anemic and near-death by any standard.

    Orange moron: (none / 0) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 09:44:04 PM EST
    WAAAAAAAH! The Supreme Court doesn't like me. Cause you know, it's all about me, not the law.

    I've known some lowlife $cumbuckets in my days. They all had more dignity and class than the orange clown. There is no bottom.

    And, he added, I am going to release (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    additional names of potential future Supreme Court appointees, who will be real, reliable reactionary Republicans. Because judges' decisions in cases should follow political loyalties. On the basis of that statement, no judicial nominee coming out of this White House can properly be deemed qualified or legitimately confirmed by the Senate.

    Bit late with that (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 18, 2020 at 10:18:28 PM EST
    NBC News: "Justin Walker epitomizes the conservative judicial project. He became a federal judge at 37 with no trial experience and sterling right-wing credentials. Eight months later, he has been promoted to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a frequent feeder to the Supreme Court."

    "Walker's confirmation Thursday by a Senate vote of 51 to 42 puts President Donald Trump one shy of his 200th judicial confirmation, which is teed up for next week. It's a number not achieved by any president at this stage in four decades."

    Don't I know it. I deal with those judges (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    every day. My point was that, to my knowledge, yesterday's comment was the most brazen and explicit admission of the Administration's true ideological and partisan (rather than jurisprudential) agenda in court-packing.

    Yes (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    I guess if there is an upside Trump has, as he so often does, torn off the mask and said the quiet part out loud.

    He is leaving no fig leaf of respectability from his supporters in the country or the congress.  


    Vanity Fair (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 19, 2020 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    Perry Mason starts the night (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 21, 2020 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    Excuse the OT