In a 5-4 decision the dufus loses DACA decision.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-blasts-daca-decision-asking-if-people-get-the-impression-the-supreme-court-doesn-t-like-me/ar-BB15Fgxt?ocid=msedgntp


https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBYGns5.img?h=816&w=1248&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=2142&y=1038

Only a bully picks on kids who want to work and go to school, and ain't happy that he can't just deport them from the only home they've know to one they don't!

Add that to his lose of denying gay people rights and he isn't having a good legal week with his conservative court.

Not only that, but the Bolton book has come out the same day and shown Trump to be "unfit" for the presidency. This is from a former trusted aid of the dufus.

Trump, of course, is rage-tweeting against his former confidante. Trump's bouncer AG Barr is trying to stop publication in court. Too late, jowly, it's all over the world.

LGBTQ, DACA, and Bolton. What a trio!

Presidential EOs are NOT law as permanently enacted by Congress and signed into law. They are temporary decrees that last as long as the President or the new President decides . Presidents overturns them all the time . What the Roberts Court did this time is to make an EO permanent . In doing so SCOTUS assumed and usurped a legislative power .That is modern liberalism in a nutshell . What Congress can't get done the courts do for them .That is why this Babylon Bee parody is so right on . Who needs Congress when you have 9 unelected appointed for life oligarchs doing the law making ?????? DEMOCRACY IN ACTION BABY !!!! Of course the undemocratic Democratic party is pleased .

https://babylonbee.com/news/democrat-legislators-retire-in-peace-since-supreme-court-doing-their-job-for-them?utm_content=buffere8e2c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR3LQcCMbXHu6UdNw_mI8hmlpb7XIPIQ5vxv_zpo0 _pn_eoM9DBthCizbS8

I will address Bolton later.

Who needs Congress when you have 9 unelected appointed for life oligarchs doing the law making ?????? DEMOCRACY IN ACTION BABY !!!!
Oh, my! Who appointed them??? I thought the SC leaned right!

I think Tom the court ruling said he couldn't end DACA just by EO alone without consideration for the ones that enrolled and honored the program. Some 600,000 kid. I told you he was a dufus surrounded by sycophants and incompetence. An actual workable plan would probably been upheld. Or congressional legislation.

We need some new management is the bottom line.

Presidential EOs are NOT law as permanently enacted by Congress and signed into law. They are temporary decrees that last as long as the President or the new President decides . Presidents overturns them all the time .

Then why didn't Trump just reverse the EO (which Obama previously declared to protect the children who have been here since childhood)? Answer: Incompetence.


SCOTUS assumed and usurped a legislative power .That is modern liberalism in a nutshell

Were you singing that same song when conservative justices were appointed?


That is why this Babylon Bee parody is so right on

Frankly, the parody wasn't much. As a Christian conservative outfit, parody isn't a strong suit at the Babylon Bee. Hands too heavy.


I will address Bolton later.

Looking forward to it.

The conservative Republican appointed Roberts court is proving to be one of the most activist courts since the Republican appointed Warren Court . I have been consistent in my position that SCOTUS has disproportionate power in a government that was designed so that the branches have equal power ;certainly more than should be given to unelected appointed for life justices .

They usurped the power of judicial review early in the court's history and have evolved into so call final arbiters .Nowhere in the Constitution do you find that power assigned to them .They need their wings clipped.

My position is as it was before Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice is that if term limits cannot be imposed by amendment ;then at very least every justice should be subject to a re-confirmation by the Senate periodically .Most of them lie through their teeth during their confirmation hearing or become so evasive in their responses that it is hard to determine their judicial philosophy . Does it surprise me that they are not true to what they have said in the past ? Not really . They have nothing to lose by going along to get along. Now that they are set for life the only thing left to work for is securing themselves in the beltway swamp cocktail circuit .


Then why didn't Trump just reverse the EO (which Obama previously declared to protect the children who have been here since childhood)? Answer: Incompetence. What do you think the case was ? It was about Trump's attempt to end DACA which the emperor enacted by EO.

What do you think the case was ? It was about Trump's attempt to end DACA which the emperor enacted by EO.

Yes, I know. The question is why did Trump bother going through the court - why not just reverse the order as you said in your post being a way to end DACA?

As to the SC and the philosophy behind it, I carefully read what you wrote and it's all food for thought. I would need a lot more background before commenting either way. You presented your case well.

I think Tom the court ruling said he couldn't end DACA just by EO alone without consideration for the ones that enrolled and honored the program. No actually Roberts punted it back to Homeland Security . But the real issue is that DACA as a LAW should've been decided where laws are created in Congress where they specifically have plenary authority .Congress has never given the president the power to provide a pseudo-amnesty and government benefits to illegal aliens. The unconstitutional act was the emperor's original decree . If there are 600,000 people in limbo over this the fault lies in the arbitrary and capricious manner in which DACA was enacted .

Just to refresh your memory ;October 2010 when asked why he doesn't implement immigration reforms unilaterally, the emperor declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."
So of course that is EXACTLY what he did in 2012 . Instead ;Congress had specifically rejected bills that would grant DACA rights .

What happened of course was that was seen as an open invitation to minors to cross the border as wave after wave of them did . The emperor tried again in 2014 to do DAPA ,where illegal adults would've been given amnesty . That action was declared unconstitutional by the 5th circus court and SCOTUS did not reverse the lower courts call. So how could DAPA be unconstitutional but DACA is not ?

The question is why did Trump bother going through the court - why not just reverse the order as you said in your post being a way to end DACA? His decision was challenged in court . He did not take it to court .What he did do was to direct Homeland Security boss Elaine Duke to end the program . He also told Congress he wanted immigration reform legislation within 6 months . It was his rescinding of DACA that was challenged in court .

oh wait . I get your confusion . Yes Trump brought it to SCOTUS after the DC circus's decision that Trump could not reverse the emperor's EO.

ok Bolton ; did I tell you I met him once ? I was on an Alaska cruise and it just so happened to be one that National Review has booked for one of their cruises. Bolton was one of their guest speakers. We exchanged pleasantries briefly .I told him I admired his tough positions in defense of the country .

I am sure it was that tough guy image that attracted Trump to Bolton also . Trump sees himself as a great negotiator . So he probably figured that Bolton would go out to the world as the take no prisoners representative while Trump behind the scene would forge relationships with the likes of Xi Putin and un-Kim .
But Bolton is a true believer in the things he says . He wants us to take on just about everyone .

I do not have to read his book to understand that his big beef is that Trump in the end did not follow Bolton's advice . He tries to take down Pompeo,and drive a wedge between Pompeo and Trump because in the end ,Trump went to Pompeo when he needed advice on issues of the world ,and not to Bolton. Same thing in Ukraine . Trump sent Rudy and bypassed Bolton and all his gumbas in the diplomatic corp .


This is hard for me to write because I see eye to eye with Bolton's point of view on many issues .....like Iran But the NY Slimes in a review of the book hits on the big issue .....


In June 2019, Iran had shot down an unmanned American drone, and Bolton, who has always championed what he proudly calls “disproportionate response,” pushed Trump to approve a series of military strikes in retaliation. You can sense Bolton’s excitement when he describes going home “at about 5:30” for a change of clothes because he expected to be at the White House “all night.” It’s therefore an awful shock when Trump decided to call off the strikes at the very last minute, after learning they would kill as many as 150 people. “Too many body bags,” Trump told him. “Not proportionate.”
Bolton still seems incensed at this unexpected display of caution and humanity on the part of Trump, deeming it “the most irrational thing I ever witnessed any President do.”

Me ? I would've hit Iran . But then again I am not President . And that is the crux of the problem for Bolton . He was an advisor who's advice was scorned . But Bolton was not President .He served the President. The President used him for his purposes . When he had no more use for him ,Trump quit listening .I don't know if Bolton quit or was fired . It is irrelevant because it was clearly a mutual departure .

Now Bolton is aiming to make a buck on his bitterness. His claims that Trump does things with reelection in mind beggars the truth when you consider how many times Trump does and says things that hurts his reelection chances . To Bolton it is a simple equation ;agree with him then you are principled ...disagree and you are driven by politics . Trump and he were bound to butt heads . Bolton wants us in wars . Trump consistently has said he wants us out of stupid wars .

To me this tell all book is sour grapes . But he was in a position of importance where he and Trump must've spoken candidly on a number of sensitive national security issues . If his book reveals any national security secrets ;then as much as I like him ;he has to be taken down and charged .

The conservative Republican appointed Roberts court is proving to be one of the most activist courts since the Republican appointed Warren Court . I have been consistent in my position that SCOTUS has disproportionate power in a government that was designed so that the branches have equal power ;certainly more than should be given to unelected appointed for life justices .

More a reflection of the other branches doing NOTHING or failing to pass constitutional muster. SCOTUS only gets involved when somebody brings them a case its not like they go looking for issues to decide so if the other branches of government abdicate their power of course SCOTUS appears more powerful than it really is. PSSSST. Let's not forget the right always says they are to powerful when they rule against what ever peeve they have to press. As much as I hated Citizens United, the failure of congress was why they got to decided it in the first place.


They usurped the power of judicial review early in the court's history and have evolved into so call final arbiters .Nowhere in the Constitution do you find that power assigned to them .They need their wings clipped.


Has anyone ever challenge them? No but they have been reversed or corrected by new cases and as the highest court in the land.


My position is as it was before Roberts was confirmed as Chief Justice is that if term limits cannot be imposed by amendment ;then at very least every justice should be subject to a re-confirmation by the Senate periodically .Most of them lie through their teeth during their confirmation hearing or become so evasive in their responses that it is hard to determine their judicial philosophy . Does it surprise me that they are not true to what they have said in the past ? Not really . They have nothing to lose by going along to get along. Now that they are set for life the only thing left to work for is securing themselves in the beltway swamp cocktail circuit .


Should they be independent, or vote along party lines? Obviously you expect them to be partisan and vote repub/conservative. You have to admit everybody is expecting them to be partisan but you can holler sour grapes when the break that expectation. We all know the nomination process is a sham, practiced, rehearsed, and predictable.


What do you think the case was ? It was about Trump's attempt to end DACA which the emperor enacted by EO.

Obamas EO was comprehensive and within his powers while yet again the dufus just throws crap against the wall and expects the flies to eat it. I mean how many times did he have to resubmit his Muslim ban before he got it right?

I don't blame the courts, I blame the dufus incompetence. Have you noticed you haven't heard about the Flynn case lately? Wonder why?



To me this tell all book is sour grapes . But he was in a position of importance where he and Trump must've spoken candidly on a number of sensitive national security issues . If his book reveals any national security secrets ;then as much as I like him ;he has to be taken down and charged .

If Bolton couldn't testify under oath when asked then screw his tell all. The dufus has had plenty of time to decide what's in and what's out, and an injunction instead of charges is rather telling tome. More dufus self serving antics before an election.

Have you noticed you havent heard about the Flynn case lately? Wonder why? That's easy . The case is with a DC circus panel . That's why it is telling that one of the judges said Sullivan had appointed an "intemperate amicus" to oppose the DOJ ,in a not so subtle swipe at John Gleeson. The judge then went back to form consistent with the DC circus and said that doesn't mean he would deny Sullivan's motion. There is a hearing set for July 16 and the court is going to drag it out until then . That is why you hear nothing new about the Flynn case .


If Bolton couldn't testify under oath when asked then screw his tell all. Nah that was Bolton granstanding to sell his book. Everyone knows there is no way he was going to be allowed to testify because of the reason I already mentioned . He knew it was never going to happen. The Dems knew it too but were willing to play along with the charade

It's all for silly season TV to me Tom. Just never seen the crap piled so high before.

Everyone knows there is no way he was going to be allowed to testify because of the reason I already mentioned

To be clear, would you state the "reason you already mentioned" that Bolton was not allowed to testify?

It seems that Bolton could have testified but that would have prevented him earning millions for the book. In light of what has been reported about the book and it's blanket conclusion of Trump's unfitness to be president, the refusal doesn't speak well for Bolton's patriotism.

The Dems maintain that forcing him to testify would have been months in the courts, probably beyond the election.

It's all for silly season TV to me Tom. Just never seen the crap piled so high before.

Well that is certainly true and not only in the US, things are going to pot all over the world, and a little virus has done it, put a dint in the rhetoric that we are the greatest and that applies to many nations. The virus will resurge notwithstanding that various cures are touted by the snake oil salesmen of the pharma who are profitting big

the snake oil salesmen of the pharma who are profitting big explain . the only things being used for treatment at this point are old products that don't have exclusive patents and sell for pennies a dose . Big Pharma is spending a fortune in the hope that they can create a vaccine or a treatment regimen that helps saves lives and ends the pandemic . What are the Aussies contributing to the effort ?The medicine wheel ?
https://www.oilsandplants.com/pics/aboriginal5.jpg

In doing so SCOTUS assumed and usurped a legislative power .That is modern liberalism in a nutshell . What Congress can't get done the courts do for them .Exactly correct.


What are the Aussies contributing to the effort ?The medicine wheel ?I laughed out loud at that one.

It was just a few months ago that Clete was saying the Aussies had come up with a cure for the virus. Wonder what happened to that?

No different than conservatives expecting this new conservative SCOTUS to accomplish for the dufus and his legally flawed EOs is it? Wasn't that the whole plan behind Moscow Mitch not confirming Obama's pick?

Mitch was following the Biden doctrine

Still spinning Biden's utterance as a doctrine Tom? It didn't happen. I know you're just poking the bear Tom, but I better post the facts just in case somebody believes McConnell's EXCUSE to justify not allowing Obama to fill a SCOTUS seat.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/


Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech (https://youtu.be/oVvxGa0zhWo) addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

When Slick Mitch was asked if would fill a seat close to the election for the dufus, he said of course he would. I believe him.

Here's an interesting tidbit.

https://www.mywabashvalley.com/washington/washington-dc/supreme-court-for-now-stays-out-of-police-immunity-debate/

to urge delay if a vacancy did appear.So what was Biden urging a delay for? Bush vs. Clinton was six months away. Do you think he was wanting to delay for better airfares, or because of the baseball season or gas prices? Come on. You're being silly. It is obvious why he was wanting to delay.

Biden's point seems to be if a vacancy came up whether Bush lost, or not he could still fill the vacancy after the election since a new prez isn't sworn in until January, giving the senate 2 and a half months to confirm him, without the distraction of the campaign, or party convention.

That's how Joe explained it. Just read the link. He was quoted. Who's being silly, and who pulled a fast one?

Biden's point seems to be if a vacancy came up whether Bush lost, or not he could still fill the vacancy after the election since a new prez isn't sworn in until January, giving the senate 2 and a half months to confirm him, without the distraction of the campaign, or party convention.

Sounds pretty clear to me. ""Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."

It is very clear that Biden was saying the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nominee until after the election. If Bush won, then fine. If he lost, do you really think they would have considered the nominee???

That was his word, but we can never know since it didn't happen, but we do know what Slick Mitch and repubs did to Obamas' nominee don't we. Despicable and even more so to blame it on Bidens' own words.

That was his word, but we can never know since it didn't happenMaybe so, but we do know that calling it the "Biden Doctrine" is accurate and McConnell was right in referring to it.

Give the devil his due for the dirty trick and spin. He got over, and you liked it so okay, don't beetch when you get got. You know how that goes...what goes around...!

Judge ruled Bolton could go ahead with publishing . No real surprise there . Judge gave the lamest of reasons ......
"In taking it upon himself to publish his book without securing final approval from national intelligence authorities, Bolton may indeed have caused the country irreparable harm. But in the Internet age, even a handful of copies in circulation could irrevocably destroy confidentiality."

translation ;in the internet age it is ok to break the law if you do it fast enough. To the Judges credit , the judge also blasted Bolton’s attorney for not waiting for the government to complete a pre-publication review for classified information before publishing, saying Bolton “didn’t get written authority.”

Bolton does not escape the law suit that is sure to follow . So this is what will happen . The book sales will soar as libs who hate Bolton's guts gobble up the book looking for any tidbit to nail Trump with ..... and Bolton will not make a dime for it and may still face criminal and assuredly civil penalties .

Yeah, let's have criminal charges against Bolton to find out why the WH is stalling. They've had it for at least 6 months already. Time to put up, or shut up.

if Bolton broke the law by revealing national secrets he should be charged . He certainly breached and probably broke the terms of his NDA s which will be the basis of the civil suit . Yes he violated 2 of the agreements

https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/sf312.pdf
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf

He also violated preclearance disclosure rules . The judge punted and said it was too late to stop it because the disclosure already happened on the net through leaks . That frankly is absurd logic. If you rush to publish before the review is finished then oh well too late ? The judge should've stopped publication regardless of how much of it was already leaked.

Well arrest him. What's the hold up? We don't have to speculate just do it! DO IT! DO IT!

oh but that due process ... what an inconvenience .

Or a convenience depending how you look at it. Bolton can be all kinds of bad guys and liars, from all kinds of sycophants until the cuffs come out.

Just maybe Bolton has Trump dead to rights

Bolton has a long reputation and whether you like him or not he isn't that easily dismissed and I have heard he is scheduling interviews all over the place for the summer in what amounts to a book tour. Could it turn into a huge smear campaign for the dufus? If he talks to enough lefties it could result in a lot of embarrassing questions.