There Was Never An Argument For Not Letting Trump End DACA

Live by the executive order, die by the executive order.

That's the central principle of radical governance. Obama governed by executive order. His illegal amnesty of some illegal aliens, known as DACA, or the Dreamers, was bad enough legally on its own terms, but the idea, postulated by Democrat judges, that Trump was obligated to abide by it was worse.

The argument comes down to process. The Trump administration, we are repeatedly told, owes more of an explanation.

That this absurdity is even being put forward as an argument in front of the Supreme Court shows what a mockery jurisprudence has become. And the reality that there is a risk that Justice Roberts might bite shows what a farce the judiciary has become. It's the same thin pretext that Democrat judges have been using to sabotage Trump moves. It's a non-argument that would never have been considered had it been put forward by Republicans against Obama. But here we are, waiting to see if the Democrats succeed in getting Justice Roberts to stab the Constitution and the rule of law in the back one more time.

Of course that's not the argument that's being publicly made. Instead, just like gay marriage and abortion, the core argument is being conducted with rallies, corporate pressure, and social pressure. All the tools of astroturf populism meant to once again pressure Roberts into ignoring the law.

Because there is no law on the DACA side.

Had Obama passed illegal alien amnesty through Congress, as bad as it would be, there would be no conversation. Likewise, there's no conversation to be had about maintaining an illegal amnesty under the guise of discretion because a previous administration did it.

If Warren were to win, does anyone seriously believe that she would be obligated to abide by Trump's executive orders just because tearing them down would disrupt people's lives? Of course not. The double standard is always double.

 

Share