Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Sotomayor at DACA Oral Arguments: ‘This Is About Our Choice to Destroy Lives’

  1. #1
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,044
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,810
    Thanked 113,085 Times in 59,902 Posts

    Law Sotomayor at DACA Oral Arguments: ‘This Is About Our Choice to Destroy Lives’

    By Penny Starr - Breitbart




    During oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court Tuesday on he future of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program, Justice Sonia Sotomayor injected politics into the discussion, saying President Donald Trump has said he would find a way to keep DACA recipients in the United States but has not done so.
    Sotomayor also addressed what other justices cited — the “reliance interests” of DACA recipients, or how the government program has allowed illegal migrants to get Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, and work permits that they have come to rely on.

    Sotomayor said:

    I think my colleagues have rightly pointed [out] there’s a whole lot of reliance interests that weren’t looked at, including the very President of — current President telling DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him and that he would find a way to keep them here. And so he hasn’t and, instead, he’s done this. And that, I think, has something to be considered before you rescind a policy.

    “Right,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco said.

    “Not just say I’ll give you six months to do it,” Sotomayer said, referring to Trump’s past announcement that he would hold off on rescinding DACA for six months to allow Congress to come up with a legislative solution.

    “And where is the political decision made clearly?” Sotomayor said referring to the June 22, 2018 memorandum issued by Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to explain why the department was rescinding DACA.

    “That this is not about the law; this is about our choice to destroy lives,” Sotomayor said, directly expressing what she believed a ruling to end DACA would mean to those enrolled in it.

    The back and forth between the justices, Francisco and two attorneys who argued for DACA petitioners — attorney Ted Olson and Michael Mongan, Solicitor General at California Department of Justice – included more discussion about the impact the ruling would have on both DACA recipients and the future enforcement of federal immigration law.

    Olson and Mongan argued that the Trump administration did not provide a compelling reason for rescinding DACA, which came to the high court after differing results in lower court decisions on the matter.

    Francisco argued that DACA, put in place by President Barack Obama’s executive action in 2012, was not legal or highly likely to be illegal and it also would “hamstring” federal law enforcement from enforcing immigration law.

    But the heart of the case revolves around two issues: Can the courts review the government’s rescission of the DACA program? And was the government’s decision to rescind DACA “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets standards for federal agency actions that are generally enforceable in the courts?

    The case analysis by Steven D. Schwinn of the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall School of law noted that “As of 2017, when the government rescinded the program, there were nearly 700,00 active DACA recipients. Their average age was just under 24-years-old. Over 90 percent were employed and 45 percent were in school.”

    Many of the groups submitting Amicus briefs in favor of DACA in perpetuity — or forever — were educational institutions and U.S. businesses who benefit from this demographic.

    The entities backing DHS were those groups that believe DACA is not constitutional and benefits those in the country illegally while threatening the employment and educational opportunities of citizens.

    A ruling in the case is expected in June 2020.

    These cases are Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588, and McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

  2. #2
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,044
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,810
    Thanked 113,085 Times in 59,902 Posts
    I thought that Supreme Court justices were supposed to leave politics out of the equation?

  3. #3
    Take Box B DemonGeminiX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bum Fuck Egypt, East Jabip
    Posts
    64,804
    vCash
    27021
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Thanks
    45,041
    Thanked 16,892 Times in 11,967 Posts
    Thanks, Obama.


    Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.

    Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to DemonGeminiX For This Useful Post:

    PorkChopSandwiches (11-13-2019)

  5. #4
    21-Jazz hands salute Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    On the Waters of Life
    Posts
    47,246
    vCash
    9653
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Thanks
    25,971
    Thanked 12,316 Times in 8,172 Posts
    Just interpret the constitution and STFU with your ol fro..

  6. #5
    Shelter Dweller PorkChopSandwiches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    77,135
    vCash
    5000
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Thanks
    47,197
    Thanked 29,254 Times in 16,488 Posts
    :sh:






  7. #6
    #DeSantis2024 Teh One Who Knocks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    5280' Above Sea Level
    Posts
    256,044
    vCash
    10966
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Thanks
    23,810
    Thanked 113,085 Times in 59,902 Posts
    She should be forced to recuse herself from this case because it's plainly obvious that she can't be unbiased in this.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Teh One Who Knocks For This Useful Post:

    DemonGeminiX (11-13-2019), Muddy (11-13-2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •