The OP doesn't miss the point of the criticisms at all. The folks criticizing the decision are the ones not happy with it. Plain and simple. So, now the Supreme Court is "usurping the enumerated powers..." and making "retarded decisions".
The court did not rule that, "the current president cannot revoke an EO of a previous president". That happens quite often. Mostly when administrations change.
The court did rule that DHS's ending of DACA was not in compliance with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets the rule making procedures for federal agencies.
If anything, this decision helps to preserve our system, not unravel it. EOs need to be implemented within the legal requirements. Trump's DACA EO did not. He is free to go back and redo the EO so it meets the requirements of the APA.
The original 2012 DACA EO remains legal until the Supreme Court says otherwise or the Congress passes legislation saying otherwise.
Fair reply. Still disagree.
But why are the critics not happy? Some b/c they hate DACA. Some (I'm in this crowd) because the reasoning was flawed and straw grasping on the part of SCOTUS. In that vein, see here:
Conservative senators are fuming over the Supreme Court’s ruling blocking President Trump’s plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and, in particular, Ch…
thehill.com
Here's a Breitbart article:
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Trump could not end DACA -- at least not the way he did it. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberals.
www.breitbart.com
Here's a snip from it that succinctly presents the majority's rationale (what I'm so worked up over):
In a complex, 5-4 opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s four liberal justices, the majority held that the administration had (a) failed to offer sufficient reasons for rescinding the policy, and had (b) failed to provide enough consideration about what would happen to the 700,000 people who had registered for the DACA program.
(a) Failed to provide sufficient reasons? Huh? How about the fact that the original EO was an exercise in over-reach? And that the current Executive was redressing this over-reach?
(b) Failed to provide enough consideration? Well, maybe the issuer of the original EO should have thought about that? Cynically, I bet he did, knowing that what happened is what would happen. The court fails to note the approach by the current administration to work with Congress, but it was rebuffed? Cynically, I bet the Democrats knew exactly how to play this out.
Speaking of the operative words here ("sufficiant" and "enough") I am willing to bet a nickel (plug or otherwise) that the bar to clear by this SCOTUS wrt the procedural requirements of the APA will be set at an unreachable height.
I was willing to give Roberts a pass with his tortured ACA tax reasoning, but this take shows he is a sub-par judge, has an agenda quite contrary to why he was nominated, and/or someone is holding something over his head (maybe airplane flights?). There are no other reasonable ways to explain this utter stupidity.
In the end, this posturing by Roberts is every bit as ridiculous as Judge Sullivan's in the Flynn case: judges playing a game of
couper les cheveux en quatre (i.e., "hair splitting" or "'angels on the head of a pin' counting" or quibbling) in order to expand their judicial reach. Awful. Simply awful. Refer back to
The Hill post.
Again, thank you for your take on the case. As I said and you can see, I disagree.
--- End of line (MCP)
