Dreamers win 💪🏿💪🏿

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442086)

but this scrolling down is more upsetting personally, but i guess i don't have a legal argument against it:

In one of the major environmental cases of the term, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 this week that the U.S. Forest Service could permit the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to cross underneath the Appalachian Trail in Virginia’s George Washington National Forest.

leave my nature alone, faggots.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442152)

Do you really think all the liberals just happened to read the APA one way and the conservatives another based on an honest legal analysis and not policy preference?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442395)

True. They wanted to use DACA as a bargaining chip for immigration reform on their terms. They never liked the idea of killing it entirely. The attempt to kill it was half-hearted (holding a BB gun to the hostage).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442459)

As long as orange man is trying to kick out brown people this same group of "justices" will block him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442388)

Nothing but an outright coup can change the US for the better.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442306)

obviously there are frauds and grifters (chain migration, etc), but on the whole these people were already here and had been.

just one take.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40443292)

but if that's the case, then shouldn't the program be illegal in the first place? the executive can't just create a program that confers substantive rights without congressional action. that's legislation. either the executive can rescind it, or the program is illegal in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442468)

the tldr is:

- admin agency has to stand by their first articulated rationale for ending the program, which was illegality, full stop.

- illegality of DACA seems well grounded in 5th circuit decision re DAPA, but only wrt to part about conferring substantive benefits, like employment eligibility, NOT wrt to discretionary non-enforcement.

- thus, the stated rationale works for getting rid of the conferring benefits portion of DACA, but was insufficient for the other part - the stated rationale did not address that at all, so it's arbitrary and capricious.

it's stupid, but at least it's logical

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442572)

and it's insulting to everyone's intelligence to pretend that these are some academic-minded "dreamers" and not 80iq squat mestizos trying to backdoor into gibs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442685)

but maybe i should go back to india. unlike you i can actually speak hindi and integrate with my culture. wtf are you if not some whitewashed turd?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40443027)

1. They'd get rid of a lot of illegals.

2. They'd create a constitutional crisis.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40442913)

by contrast, scalia and thomas never changed, because you knew who they were at the outset.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4563734&forum_id=2#40443507)