I wrote the headline above, about impeaching the Supreme Court Justices who did this latest decision, saying that President Trump cannot rescind Obama's DACA program without looking to see which were our justices and which were their justices.
Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was so obviously an unconstitutional exercise of executive powers that the President does not have, that for a long time before he did it, Obama kept protesting that he couldn't do it: “I’m president, I’m not king,” he said.
Then he did it, because the combination of the Minority Occupation Government Democrats and the cowardly cuckservative Republicans meant that he could act like he was king, and no one could stop him.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judgment: Vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 18, 2020. Roberts delivered the opinion of the court except as to Part IV. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined that opinion in full, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.[PDF]
Roberts was supposed to be one of "our" judges (to the extent that any judge is) but turned his coat a long time ago. (See John Roberts Makes His Career Move, by Pat Buchanan in 2012.)
It doesn't matter — they're all a little guilty, if they're only "dissenting in part."
Without getting into the weeds of the "Administrative Procedure Act," the obvious point is that the power-crazed Obama Administration decided to let a bunch of people who were, by law, illegally in the country get away with it, and maintain and profit from their illegal residency.
Then we had a Federal Election, where the people voted for a candidate who promised to rescind this illegal program.
Any Justice who thinks that that the "Administrative Procedure Act" is more important than protecting the country from invasion needs to be impeached. This kind of thing is what impeachment is for.
When Obama did this, we argued for impeaching him:
We've also been talking about impeaching judges for a long time:
In 2012, the Left was considering impeachment, because there was a case that imperiled Obamacare:
Nothing came of it: that was when Roberts "made his career move," above.
The very same man who several years ago said that a mandate was a tax declared today that plenary executive decisions are the same as hard-baked constitutional provisions.— Countenance Blog the Expat (@countenanceblog) June 18, 2020
However, recently we've discovered that it is possible for Congress to hold an impeachment trial:
This is the illustration that went with it:
Well, yes, and these guys:
The real problem is that the Judiciary was meant to be the "least dangerous branch" of the United States government, and now it's the most dangerous — what we refer to as "Kritarchy," or rule by judges.
And Peter Brimelow was writing about that as long ago as 1987: