I'm blown away that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are at ends, it's frankly nice to see that there will still be diversity of thought on the court.
Gorsuch seems more interested in just the letter of the law, regardless if that results in absurdities.
I'm also skeptical about those complaints as they typically just are translated "this should be read strictly because the outcome is what I want".
There is no authority by which judges can promote executive orders to the status of law, and then proceed order that the government spend money on the program. This was precisely a situation where the judges were uncomfortable with the outcome so they legislated from the bench.
DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty.
>creating non-individualized discretion decisions
Prioritizing deportations and prosecution based on criminal history has been done for ages, that doesn't seem much different and isn't questioned much at all...
When was action going to be taken? Under DACA participants can renew every two years with no limit on how many renewals they can do. That's amnesty.
Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution that says an executive order cannot be reversed by a later president. The courts acted as if there is and ordered the continued implementation of DACA.
Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.
The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
I clearly stated "effective amnesty" in my original post. If the day of action can be indefinitely put off, then it's effective amnesty.
>Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.
What is the constitutional basis for a prior president's executive orders being irreversible by a later president?
>The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
What's the constitutional, or statutory, basis for non-citizens who have no lawful status in the country, to have a right to remain in the country?
You're understanding or at least shifting statements that revolve around this being purely a case where a president has the right to change course is simply not the only factor at play.
You seem more concerned about the question of immigration rather than the actual law / decisions in play.