Anonymous ID: a7c3ca June 18, 2020, 11:18 a.m. No.9660497   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Trump Administration Of DACA Rescission

 

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court had blocked the Trump Administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an “arbitrary and capricious” change. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal judges, ruled that Trump’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It was another self-inflicted wound due to a poorly executed policy change in this area. The ruling is based on procedural failures, not the merits or the underlying authority.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The majority ruled that: “the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.” In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote that any such errors were irrelevant because the underlying policy was facially unlawful”: “Under the auspices of today’s decision, administrations can bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda,. Even if the agency lacked authority to effectuate the changes, the changes cannot be undone by the same agency in a successor administration un- less the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court. In other words, the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”

 

What I find the most interesting is PART IV where Roberts was supported by only three justices (with the omission of Justice Sotomayor). That section rejected the use of President Trump’s public statements as proof of racial animus. The language rejects such reliance by lower courts, particularly the Ninth Circuit.: None of these points, either singly or in concert, establishes a plausible equal protection claim. First, because Latinos make up a large share of the unauthorized alien population, one would expect them to make up an outsized share of recipients of any cross-cutting immigration relief program. … Were this fact sufficient to state a claim, virtually any generally applicable immigration policy could be challenged on equal protection grounds.

 

Second, there is nothing irregular about the history leading up to the September 2017 rescission. The lower courts concluded that “DACA received reaffirmation by [DHS] as recently as three months before the rescission,” 908 F. 3d, at 519 (quoting 298 F. Supp. 3d, at 1315), referring to the June 2017 DAPA rescission memo, which stated that DACA would “remain in effect,” App. 870. But this reasoning confuses abstention with reaffirmation. The DAPA memo did not address the merits of the DACA policy or its legality. Thus, when the Attorney General later determined that DACA shared DAPA’s legal defects, DHS’s decision to reevaluate DACA was not a “strange about-face.” 908 F. 3d, at 519. It was a natural response to a newly identified problem.

 

Finally, the cited statements are unilluminating. The relevant actors were most directly Acting Secretary Duke and the Attorney General. As the Batalla Vidal court acknowledged, respondents did not “identif[y] statements by [either] that would give rise to an inference of discriminatory motive.” 291 F. Supp. 3d, at 278. Instead, respondents contend that President Trump made critical statements about Latinos that evince discriminatory intent. But, even as interpreted by respondents, these statements—remote in time and made in unrelated contexts— do not qualify as “contemporary statements” probative of the decision at issue. Arlington Heights, 429 U. S., at 268. Thus, like respondents’ other points, the statements fail to raise a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus.

 

The decision is already being misrepresented as a ruling on the merits or a rejection of the underlying claims of illegality. It is not.

https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/18/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-trump-administration-of-daca-rescission/

 

Here is the opinion: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf

Anonymous ID: a7c3ca June 18, 2020, 11:48 a.m. No.9660744   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0800 >>0977 >>1038

Ex-Trump adviser breaks silence on Russia probe, says Iran deal played role in false allegations

 

'It elevates my suspicion that there is something at a higher level that was happening … to stop a president,' Walid Phares says in interview with Just the News.

 

For more than two years now, Walid Phares has kept a secret. The national security expert favored by many conservatives was interviewed and investigated in the Russia collusion probe, mostly for an issue unrelated to Moscow. It was Egypt, actually. The allegation — like many in the Russia case —, turned out to be spurious, and Phares was never charged with wrongdoing by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Now, Phares is speaking out for the first time, suggesting that one of the motives of those who made the allegations and sustained the investigation was to hamper the early Trump presidency’s foreign policy goals, including the 45th president’s long-promised plan to cancel the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal. “In my view, the push against the Trump campaign, and then the transition, and then the administration was on behalf of those who wanted to defend the Iran deal, to protect the interests of the Iran deal,” Phares told Just the News.

 

Phares, a counterterrorism expert who advised Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Republicans in Congress for years, has long been a critic of Iran for its support for terrorism as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tehran’s ally in the Sunni world. The Obama administration struck the deal to pay billions to Iran and ease sanctions on the country in exchange for a freeze on its nuclear weapons program, and it recognized the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the Arab Spring uprising led to the overthrow of Cairo’s longtime ruler Hosni Mubarak. Trump’s improbable win in 2016 threatened to upend those alliances, Phares said during an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast, and likely set in motion efforts to undermine the new president in fall 2016 and spring 2017. “The Obama administration obviously was not happy,” Phares said. "Not just because Donald Trump won the election, but they knew that he was about to change things. The most important point that they were concerned about, and that was not a secret, was the fact that Donald Trump said during the campaign that he will be withdrawing, he will be canceling, he used different terminology, the Iran deal. And the Iran deal was a major strategic achievement of the Obama administration. Definitely, they were not happy with that." “And Donald Trump, also during his campaign, was talking about changing, shifting alliances in the region," he added. "He didn't want the partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood … So it was a massive change in foreign policy.” Phares said one of the events that landed him in the bullseye of the Russia probe occurred in September 2016, when Trump met with the Egyptian leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who ousted the Muslim Brotherhood from its brief reign of power in Cairo after a popular uprising.

 

The meeting was actually set up by others, but the Egyptians reached out to Phares, who was advising Trump at the time on Middle East issues, and he encouraged them to meet Trump, Phares said. Sisi actually met Trump and Hillary Clinton on the same day in New York, and Phares didn’t even attend. A year later, Phares suddenly got a knock on his door from FBI agents working for Mueller’s probe. He was questioned several times by agents and prosecutors, as well as by House and Senate investigators. And nothing more ever came of it. Multiple sources with direct knowledge told Just the News that U.S. intelligence during the Obama-Trump transition received allegations suggesting Phares may have accepted money or been acting as an unregistered lobbyist for Egyptians trying to gain influence with Trump. The uncorroborated allegations were eventually put into the scope memo signed in August 2017 by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that set the parameters for the work that Mueller’s team was to accomplish. Suddenly, the Russia special prosecutor was looking into a matter far from Moscow involving Egypt, the sources said.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/ex-trump-adviser-breaks-silence-russia-probe-says-iran

 

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-11/news-briefs/russia-completes-s-300-delivery-iran

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-egypt/clinton-trump-to-both-meet-with-egyptian-president-at-u-n-idUSKCN11O109

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/world/africa/hosni-mubarak-dead.html

https://carnegieendowment.org/files/3-13_Badawi_and_Sayyad_Iran.pdf

Anonymous ID: a7c3ca June 18, 2020, 12:03 p.m. No.9660869   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Corporations, Airlines, State Governments House of Reps (D's) all imposing rules, not imposed by the federal government, Muzzles are a choice not a mandate..Subversion of individuals Civil Rights, needs to be called out, American's need to Stand Up Unified in One Voice, Remove the Masks (Muzzles). We need a National Muzzles OFF show of Unity. There are moar of us than of them. In addition it wouldn't be a bad idea to voice the refusal of wearing these muzzles through the use of memes directly to all corporations social media accounts who are participating in this sham.

 

Which group looks moar free!