He was gifted one appointment when Mitch McConnell refused to do his duty in allowing hearings for Obama’s replacement for the departed Antonin Scalia. He was gifted another, not by death, but retirement of a justice.
Now he hates them all and wants new ones.
Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion on the DACA case was very clear. It wasn’t that the program could not be ended, but that there is a right way to go about it and the administration failed to do so. “The dispute before the Court is not whether [Department of Homeland Security] may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a majority opinion”…
From TheHill.com story on the decision, “In both the census and DACA cases, the Supreme Court’s decision was guided by a federal statute called the Administrative Procedure Act, which concerns how much decision-making power resides with federal agencies. The narrow issue before the court in DACA was whether the Trump administration’s repeal was legally justified or if it was “arbitrary and capricious,” and thus illegal under the act.”
To call decisions that don’t go his way “politically charged” is, in a phrase horse hockey. It is just another tantrum by a child who doesn’t get his way all of the time. The Senate had the opportunity to put him in “time out”, but chose to coddle him. When my grand kids get like that, they get put in timeout until they realize the errors of their ways.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I agree that Roberts decided the case for the right reasons. The law is the law, not what you wish it was.
Of course, the other 4 justices in the majority voted for outcome, not law, but Roberts decided for the right reason.
LikeLike
“… the other 4 justices in the majority voted for outcome…”
I missed that part. Did you see their opinions?
LikeLike
Yes, I did, It is not an easy read.
Basically, Roberts wrote parts 1 through 3 of the decision, but not part four, a collaboration of the other 4 justices. Part 4 questions whether Trump’s decision to end DACA was driven by animus(which is irrelevant even if true) and the failure of DHS to take the effect of ending DACA on the protected aliens. That is all pure outcome based reasoning, with no basis in law.
You can get a good idea of why from Thomas’s dissent which is based on the idea that DACA was illegal in the first place, and thus there was no need to follow form in dismissing it and returning to the law pre-DACA, but he addresses part 4 beginning on page 54.
SCOTUS DACA decision
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, animus is not irrelevant. Motive is part of the Constitution. For example, “… ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, how is motive a factor in that legal requirement? Would a religious test for some motive be an exception?
LikeLike
The religious test clause is there because of animus, the same eventually with the CRA. The first acts by Trump, banning ALL Muslims from entry were blocked on the grounds of animus. Eventual rewrites allowed the Administration to narrow the scope to a reasonable man test that avoided animus. If nothing else, animus is cause to believe it would be a violation of the 14th.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, again, in what way odes that change the letter of the law?
Would it be OK for a President to appoint ONLY Muslims to certain posts because he really likes them?
The Constitution forbids religious tests for public office. How you feel about it is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Certain posts? Yes. All posts? No.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…” collaboration of the other 4 justices.”
I agree that reading through Supreme Court decisions is a slog, regardless of who wrote what. But your statement concerning Part 4 of the decision is factually inaccurate.
If you scroll down one more page, you would see that Justice Sotomayor DISAGREED with Part 4 of the decision. From the syllabus:
“ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV.
GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion
concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in
part. ”
From Sotomayor’s closing paragraph.
“Because the Court prematurely disposes of respondents’ equal protection
claims by overlooking the strength of their complaints, I join all but Part IV of the opinion and do not concur in the corresponding part of the judgment. “
LikeLike
…”the idea that DACA was illegal in the first place”…
When was that handed down? Don’t recall any court decisions about the legality of the program.
It may be an idea that it is unlawful, but it is only an idea and one that had never been challenged. No lawsuits fighting it before. Why is that?
LikeLike
Actually, President Obama acknowledged it was unconstitutional when he did it. But he said that since Congress hadn’t acted he would, and hoped Congress would act before the courts threw it out.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/daca-unconstitutional-obama-admitted
LikeLike
…”before the courts threw it out.”
And yet they haven’t. Wonder why that is?
LikeLike
Outcome based judiciary
LikeLike
In 12 years, since inception, not one lawsuit to overturn it. And then Trump’s “best people” are too damned lazy to follow the law in repealing it. It may happen eventually. But time is running out.
And any lawsuit filed after inception would have won, based on your post. Yet no lawsuits were filed. Why is that? Why do I have to ask the question again?
The best way to solve the issues is for Congress to pass a law to fix the situation. We may have to wait until the next Congress is sworn in because Mitch won’t lift a finger to do anything except ensure HIS judge’s get appointed. He’s gonna rush to flood the courts between now and January. If you don’t believe that, you haven’t been paying attention.
He and his crony, Lindsay Graham, are so afraid of losing their majority, they are screaming for older judges to retire early so they can fill those bench seats with 28 year old law school grads with little to no litigation or Constitutional law experience.
LikeLike
Our president just wants to appease his base: “It’s not my fault. Bad judges. Everybody knows that. I take no responsibility. Except for Kavanaugh…my man. Gorsuch is ungrateful after all I did for him. He begged me for the job.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have a cite for that quote?
LikeLike
Don, you know I write with a bit of poetic license.
No cite other than my imagination and a bit of parody.
I just used phrases that copy and or mirror the president’s over the years.
If I quote someone I usually post the link or it refers to a rebuttal.
Sorry to confuse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Poetic license or left wing sensationalism gone amok? Pinhead “parody” Schiff has taught you well grasshopper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He sure does get under your thin skin with his parodies and poetic license. But at least it is based in fact, unlike your anti-liberal bias that is based only on fear and hatred.
LikeLike
Thank you for a good coffee through the nose moment. Try better next time.
LikeLike
Sorry you wasted you coffee and stained your computer/phone screen. But I must have hit the nail on the head, because, as usual, you have to actual reply.
Len gets to you a lot worse than you ever got to me. And you cannot stand it.
And the petulant child description applies to you as well.
And I really don’t have to work all that hard. I could “slay” you in my sleep.
LikeLike
Congratulations.
You learned how to spell Congressman Schiff’s name correctly instead of just cutting and pasting from Trump’s tweets.
Progress.
“Pinhead” and “Grasshopper”. I am at a loss as to which one I prefer.
Perhaps I can keep both since you take exception to my “point” and “jump to conclusions”.
I know, it’s lame. But I consider the audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s try to be more civil here than the Congress
LikeLike