Donald trump’s re-election chances hinge on a united Republican Party. The coronavirus pandemic exposed some…Read More →
Not all of the left’s victories at the Supreme Court turned out the way they hoped.
In fact, one may have just blown up in their face.
Clarence Thomas handed Donald Trump the weapon he waited four years for.
As American Patriot Daily reports:
There is no doubt Chief Justice John Roberts selling out conservatives to vote with the court’s four liberals to uphold Barack Obama’s amnesty program for children of illegal aliens was a defeat.
Roberts clearly decided on the outcome first – he wanted to uphold Obama’s legacy achievement – and worked backwards from there.
However, in his dissent, Clarence Thomas pointed out Roberts and the Democrats made a mistake that they will live to regret.
Thomas argued that the decision opened the door to President Trump issuing a series of Executive Branch memorandums in his final years in office that could tie the hands of the next Democrat president.
“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 unless the successor provides sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court,” Thomas argued.
“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,” Thomas added.
In 2017, the Trump administration rescinded Obama’s amnesty program.
But because the Supreme Court sat on the case until June 2020, it forced the Trump administration to execute the program with no realistic chance to reverse it unless President Trump wins a second term.
Thomas then argued that the majority – led by the chief justice – prioritized a specific result and would force future courts to settle matters best decided by the legislature.
“Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch,” Thomas continued.
“Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS’ initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this Court rather than where they rightfully belong—the political branches,” Thomas continued.
In both cases that ended in wins for the left – the amnesty case and another decision granting homosexuals and transgenders special rights – the majority assumed the role of the legislature and rewrote the specific laws in question to make sure the left’s pet schemes passed constitutional muster.
And that – Thomas argued – will inflict significant harm on the American system of government.