1) Great start to a thought tangent. Here's the problem with THAT, and why DACA is in such a weird space legally.
Reparations would, in effect, involve the taxation and expenditure of money, depending on the form it would take. Congress controls the purse strings.
Reparations would, in effect, involve the taxation and expenditure of money, depending on the form it would take. Congress controls the purse strings.
2) As such, reparations are likely to never actually happen, as there exists no possible Congress that would actually pass something like reparations, much less keep such a program funded. Any Democrats who actually passed it would be utterly demolished in the next elections.
3) DACA, on the other hand, while it SHOULD have gone through Congress, and it did cost money because of bureaucratic money pit syndrome, didn't DIRECTLY cost money. Napolitano basically jury-rigged deferred prosecution, an existing database, and work visa programs to make DACA.
4) Still unconstitutional, as Congress is the body with the power to decide whether or not or halfway to legalize millions of illegal entries into the United States, not the President.
5) And that's the funniest thing; if it was an executive order like people think it is? It would have actually been WEAKER. Executive orders, as Trump has clearly demonstrated, are subject to far more avenues of legal challenges than a policy memo from within the executive branch
6) Instead, being a policy memo that doesn't technically spend money thanks to horseshit accounting and doesn't directly hurt people because you can't argue that everyone who stays in the US under DACA cause you harm if one of them DOES cause you harm...
7) ...it fell into a weird, legally invulnerable position. This is why Cocaine Mitch's nationwide judge blockade for Obama's second term was so important. We've seen with DACA itself the kind of crazy shit that can be rendered invulnerable with the courts on your side.
8) If you have the courts on your side, if your opponent doesn't have a veto-proof majority (and the GOP didn't have either for the second Obama term), and you implement something in a way to minimize legal challenges, the only way it can really be undone is by the next President
9) And even THEN, the next President may have to fight through hostile courts ANYWAYS, which is why this case reached the Supreme Court even though it never really should have.
And now, we're going to hear the Dems screech louder than they did during the Kavanaugh hearings.
And now, we're going to hear the Dems screech louder than they did during the Kavanaugh hearings.
10) Because, see, as much as people argue about Roe V Wade, abortion isn't REALLY something that's argued about in the courts. Most of the court battles have to do with how abortion providers are structured; screeching about Roe V Wade is just easier for dumbass activists.
11) The REAL fight, and why Kavanaugh was such a deathblow to the progressive agenda to fuck our country with illegal immigrants made quasi-legal, was always DACA. The fight here isn't even about whether DACA is unconstitutional; its about whether a new president can undo the old
12) See, the Executive Branch can decide what laws to 'prioritize' enforcing. It is, at its core, the law enforcement of the government. Just like how Trump can choose to ignore the implementation of certain sanctions that Congress passes.
13) On the flip side, the executive branch can also choose what laws to prioritize enforcing.
The Obama admin stopped enforcing gun laws, for example. Sessions as AG actually increased gun crime prosecutions.
The Obama admin chose to defer prosecution through DACA. ...
The Obama admin stopped enforcing gun laws, for example. Sessions as AG actually increased gun crime prosecutions.
The Obama admin chose to defer prosecution through DACA. ...
14) Now the Trump admin wants to step up prosecution and scrap DACA.
The Trump admin is being sued and told it can't enforce the prosecution that was deferred by DACA. That's the crux of the matter.
The Trump admin is being sued and told it can't enforce the prosecution that was deferred by DACA. That's the crux of the matter.
15) I see your point, and I don't think so, no.
And that is why the Dems are going to lose here; because their position is that one president can choose not to enforce laws, and a following president has to abide by the previous admin. That's insane.
And that is why the Dems are going to lose here; because their position is that one president can choose not to enforce laws, and a following president has to abide by the previous admin. That's insane.
16) Not only does a prior administration have no authority over a later administration, but the courts DO NOT have the authority to tell the President what laws to enforce or not enforce. All they can do is tell Congress whether or not something is constitutional.
17) As such, if there is anything left in this world that caters to the sane and reasonable, Roberts and SCOTUS will say that the Trump admin is not bound by DACA, and the courts can't tell the Trump admin that they are bound by Obama admin decisions.
18) If not, well, start hitting the gym, become a body builder, and go read Bronze Age Mindset by @bronzeagemantis because if the Trump admin can't win this case then we're basically fucked as a country and might as well look good while laughing as it all burns the fuck down. /e
