Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

a reply to: Xcathdra

Removing judges requires impeachment so the law is pretty well defined.

It was well-defined.

The power of Executive Order exists to fill in operational gaps in bills passed by Congress. As in, a bill can fail to mention a specific situation that arises and the President then has the power, through Executive Order, to make policy to fill in that gap. DACA went beyond that, by protecting individuals in direct opposition to the laws passed by Congress.

Now a judge has decreed that Executive Order has the same weight as legislation passed by Congress. If that is the case, Trump could issue any Executive Order he wants and it would have the same weight as legislation. This is why this is such a dangerous precedent. Under the exact same legal theory used to force DACA, Trump can pass an Executive Order giving him the authority to fire Federal judges (not including Supreme Court Justices; they are enumerated in the Constitution) and it would have the same weight legally as though such a law was passed by Congress.

So no, the law is not well defined... not any more.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Sookiechacha

A few words were tweaked to get it through activist judges, which failed.
When the SC supreme court heard the case, normal service was resumed. The President has complete power to stop anyone he likes entering the country in the interests of National Security. Crucially, nothing said on the campaign can change that, which was the whole premise of the objections to the first iteration of the travel ban.
The SC decision was a complete vindication and victory for Trump - and a rebuke of the activist judges who tried to stop the travel ban. They have no authority on the subject, just like this latest judge has no authority on DACA.

Nope. Trump's travel ban was barred because of his racist and bigoted rhetoric, that tainted his "national security" claim for why the travel ban was needed. After 3 drafts, the court found a reasonable claim that Trump's incendiary remarks weren't being reflected in the government's claim of "national security".

Now, the Trump adminstration is facing the same problem. According to Judge Bates, the Trump adminstration failed to show a crdible reason why suspending DACA is the the best interest of "national security", as they claim. His adminstration has 20 days to rewrite their claim to fit the judges demands. Maybe they can do it, maybe they'll have rewrite it again for SCOTUS.

How many rewrites is that, 5? Good luck with your spin, Trump adminstration!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99


I guess 3 Federal Judges disagree with your take on the law and how it works. I don't pretend to understand the law, but I think these judges know more than Donald Trump does.

Trump needs to go on air,and read the law on this on national TV why he is going to ignore that federal judges decision.

a reply to: yuppa


One would think that just citing a statute of the law would suffice, but I've been around lawyers enough to know that the law is complicatedly layered, and hardly ever straight forward as some simple statute.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa


One would think that just citing a statute of the law would suffice, but I've been around lawyers enough to know that the law is complicatedly layered, and hardly ever straight forward as some simple statute.

OH it will take hours to properly explain it. I didnt mean a short presser.

a reply to: Xcathdra


The republic is in danger from this sort of madness. Upholding ex-orders and the like. Actioning on things out of constitutional reality.

a reply to: TheRedneck

That way lies tyranny.

A president could issue an EO banning Congress, and what could Congress do about it? Legally, according to this judge, nothing at all.

cdn.cnn.com... link to the actual ruling on PDF over 20 pages but it should give context to whats going on and what will most likely happen next,wonder if it will end up going before scotus

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You realise that the SC ruled that the lower courts were talking #, right?
You are quite right that the same thing is happening in front of our eyes. A minority of radical activist judges operating outside the law are about to be slapped down again.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99


At the very least DACA is a contract. The Trump administration needs to provide a "good" reason why the US should rescind the contract it made with 800,000 US residents.

A contract? It was a memo.

Pray tell, which parties signed this 'contract'?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Judges can now uphold executive orders as written law? 

Holy # this could get bad real fast.

Guess it's only good if the E.O. is a travel ban on Muslims huh?

I see you are using media buzz words as usual.

how cute, and ignorant.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Aren't these judges all appointed by trump?
Didn't he like fire all federal judges and put all new ones in?

See, saying stuff like this is why no one takes you serious...ever.

You know damn well he didn't, but here you are spouting ignorance like its on tap.

sigh...

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99


I guess 3 Federal Judges disagree with your take on the law and how it works. I don't pretend to understand the law, but I think these judges know more than Donald Trump does.

and how many times have 'activist judges' been overturned recently?

Especially when it comes to Trump policies?

A lot, they also wrecked a few Obama EOs during his terms, or did we just forget about all that?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

It might be more correct to state that they think they do.

This Supreme Court, with at least one or two new justices in the next couple of years, need to begin curbing this incessant need on the part of some Federal judges to legislate, and moralize, from the bench...

Congress needs to start doing their jobs.

Um... that is the job of the courts, they have the job of interpreting the law to figure out the legality and constitutionality of laws and government rules.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
8 years was a long time to be packing courts and federal positions with progressive ideologues.
I can't wait to see what move Trump will muster to throw the whole lot on the street.
Acting against the Constitution is grounds for many things, removal being the kindest of them.

I guess you forgot that the courts were not packed or are you lying to make a point?

GOP senators blocked HUNDREDS of judicial nominations during the Obama years.

There is a reason Trump has had record number of open seats to fill in the judiciary.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TheRedneck

That way lies tyranny.

A president could issue an EO banning Congress, and what could Congress do about it? Legally, according to this judge, nothing at all.

Well, no he could not as the Congress is mandated by the constitution. Congress could write a law right now to override the DACA EO but they have not, thus the EO is the "law". Something people seem to forget is when it comes to immigration the congress has given a lot of power to the executive. Because of that executive action on immigration policy hold far more weight then normal EOs.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Vector99


At the very least DACA is a contract. The Trump administration needs to provide a "good" reason why the US should rescind the contract it made with 800,000 US residents.

A contract? It was a memo.

Pray tell, which parties signed this 'contract'?

It's a contract, between the US government and 800,000 recipients as far as they, their employers and families are concerned, that's reconsidered every 2 years.

Judge Bates wrote that the government's argument to rescind DACA wasn't compelling enough to invoke "national security", as the Trump administration is claiming. I'm no expert, but I think we're looking at something like grounds for dissolving a contract not being met. But, that's just my opinion. Like I said, the law is complicatedly layered.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah the other issue here was when a court found DAPA unconstitutional coupled with how DACA came about. Obama wanted Congress to pass a bill dealing with DACA and Congress voted it down. So Obama decided to just bypass Congress with an EO.

These judges really do need to be removed from their positions. Now our judicial system has been weaponized...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa


One would think that just citing a statute of the law would suffice, but I've been around lawyers enough to know that the law is complicatedly layered, and hardly ever straight forward as some simple statute.

Laws have made me distrustful of words.

a reply to: UKTruth


I read nowhere in the SCOTUS ruing on the Muslim Ban matter, that passed after North Korea and Venezuela were added to the list of nations, of a rebuke to the lower courts.