Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You guys seem to want to convince me to be upset with the judge's ruling, like you are.

No, we're just trying to do what the public education system should have done years ago... explain why a judge does not rule the country.

Sorry, I don't have a problem with holding the Trump administration's feet to the fire to reasonably justify, to the courts and the American people, why they want to rescind DACA.

Then you have no issue with any judge placing any restriction on Congress or the Presidency. Understand that will also apply when the Congress/Presidency is acting in a way you want to succeed. If Congress were to pass a DACA law, a single judge can decide that no, that cannot be the law because he doesn't want it to be.

And that will come back to bite you. As I have been saying, this will go to the Supreme Court, which now has a full compliment of 9 Justices. Based on the decision surrounding DAPA, where the decision was 4-4 with Scalia absent, and based on the fact that Gorsuch has replaced Scalia as another constitutional Justice, the decision will be at least 5-4 in favor of Trump. DACA will be struck down.

Once that happens, I don't want to hear a peep about how terrible it is that these people are being deported back to their country of origin. Trump will have no choice because the Supreme Court will have ruled. He can't even claim he can't find the DACA recipients, because he has all the information on them thanks to Obama. We know Congress won't act to change the law, so the DACA recipients will be deported and there's nothing anyone can do about it at that point.

One judge overstepping his bounds, in conjunction with a Congress that refuses to act because many of them want to stop anything a President tries to do, have doomed a group of people who I believe should be allowed to stay. And you are supporting it wholeheartedly. Remember that when it happens.

I will.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then you have no issue with any judge placing any restriction on Congress or the Presidency.

It's called checks and balances.

And that will come back to bite you.

Don't put this on me! This isn't about me. I'm not a DACA recipient and don't know anyone who is. Why do you make things so personal?

Once that happens, I don't want to hear a peep about how terrible it is that these people are being deported back to their country of origin.

Why? Trump declared an end to DACA, not Congress, not the courts. He didn't have to do it. But, he promised his followers during the campaign that he would deport legal immigrants if elected, and he's doing it. No, I don't approve of his terrorizing immigrant populations. Yes, I think he needs to show justification for ending DACA, and that his decision to end DACA is vindictive, arbitrary or capricious, as it affects hundreds of thousands of innocent residents' and their (citizen) families' lives.

Trump said he'd take any clean DACA bill from Congress and then he turned down 3 bi-partisian proposals presented to him, because of wall funding and his demands to fundamentally change US immigration laws. Basically, he's holding DACA recipients hostage for his ill concieved wall and desired immigration policies.

The majority of American don't want to see DACA recipients deported. Yeah, they want Congress to act, but Trump won't let them.

I never said that this case wouldn't go to the Supreme Court. We'll see how the Trump administration words their appeal. Because, if they don't clarify their justification, and they take it to SCOTUS because the lower court set the bar too high, I doubt that will be a winning argument. Maybe, they'll just claim that DACA unconstitutional, period, and try to bypass the APA altogether, and maybe SCOTUS will be okay with that. I don't know.

We'll see.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Wow stubborn as a mule.
Trump admin does not have to justify any reason to terminate an existing EO.(maybe in the court of public opinion but that is much it)

Unless it is a law confirmed by congress, the justice system does not have a say in it, period.

a reply to: efabian

Unless it is a law confirmed by congress, the justice system does not have a say in it, period.

Then why are they even involved? Why does the judge's order have any standing at all?

Trump admin does not have to justify any reason to terminate an existing EO.

Then why is the judge requiring it, and why aren't White House lawyers arguing jurisdiction?

Think people!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's called checks and balances.

No, it's a refute of checks and balances. Judge Bates has no, none, absolutely zero checks and balances on him according to you. Congress cannot overrule him, because he can declare an Executive Order to be law. A President cannot overrule him, because he can counter any Executive Order. Where are his checks and balances?

Don't put this on me!

You support the illegal ruling... why not?

Trump declared an end to DACA, not Congress, not the courts. He didn't have to do it.

Had he not, every DACA recipient in the country today would be in other countries already. Do you not understand Trump did what he did to stop his being forced to deport them?

After DACA was enacted, it was challenged by United States v. Texas. At the time it was heard, the Supreme Court was missing Justice Scalia and the decision was split 4-4. Later, Texas and a coalition of 7 other states re-filed and the case was going to the Supreme Court, which then had 9 Justices, including Neil Gorsuch. It was a slam dunk that the decision would be 5-4 to rescind DACA. Trump stopped the legal challenge by ending DACA, but gave Congress 6 months to fix the problem. He did what he always does: he made a deal to get what he wanted. DACA stayed in effect until Congress had time to fix it, and the lawsuit was dropped.

Had Trump wanted to deport DACA recipients, he could have simply done nothing, let the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional, and then deport every single person in the program. He could have just stopped the program with no time for Congress to legislate a fix. No, he made a deal for the DACA recipients, the very people who are busily protesting him in the streets, rather than throw them to the wolves. Congress threw them to the wolves! Congress refused to pass any DACA legislation.

You can complain that Trump refused them all you want. It's false. If Congress wants a law passed, Trump can't stop it. Congress can override a veto. The simple fact is that Congress couldn't agree among themselves to fix DACA. Donald Trump is best friend in government the DACA recipients have, and Congress is the worst... so whenever I see these absolute fools protesting the only real friend they have, it just tells me they don't know how the government works, don't care how the government works, and just want to hate someone named Trump.

Your statements tell me the same thing about you.

The majority of American don't want to see DACA recipients deported. Yeah, they want Congress to act, but Trump won't let them.

Here's a secret... don't tell anyone, now:

I'm one of them!

That's right; I understand their situation and have no problem with giving them legal residency status... I can even consider giving them a path to citizenship! I'm good with that, because they had no real choice in coming here. Yeah, technically they broke the law, but dammit, they didn't have the intention to do so or the ability to not do so.

That's why I am arguing this so fervently... I see the human misery that is coming from all the TDS-inspired "get Trump" agendas, and I don't want it to happen! Congress needs to fix this, and the Democrats could do it easily... if they would quit playing politics and trying to get one over on a President they just love to hate and actually do their damn job.

I wish others could see what I have been trying desperately to get them to see.

We'll see.

Yes, we will. And it'll be too late.

But that's OK. You'll blame Trump for that, too, I guess. After all, it won't be you who just had your life destroyed by a Congress that cares more about politics than people.

S
M
H

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No we just want you to understand how our government works and what can and cant be done by officials.

The judges ruling will be overturned.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Then you have no issue with any judge placing any restriction on Congress or the Presidency.

It's called checks and balances.

Then you should go back to your schools and demand a refund.

Political Question Doctrine

Overview

Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the nonjusticiability doctrine.
Applying the Doctrine

In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918), which is one of the earliest examples of the Supreme Court applying the political question doctrine, the Court found that the conduct of foreign relations is the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch. As such, the Court found that cases which challenge the way in which the Executive uses that power present political questions. Thus, the Court held that it cannot preside over these issues.

The Court broadened this ruling in Baker v Carr (1962), when it held that federal courts should not hear cases which deal directly with issues that the Constitution makes the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch and/or the Legislative Branch.

The Court in Nixon v. United States (1993) also extended this doctrine to which lawsuits which challenge the Legislative Branch's procedure for impeachment proceedings.

Further, the Supreme Court has chosen to apply the doctrine in more cases related to the Executive Branch than in cases related to the Legislative Branch.

Justiciability / Non Justiciability Doctrine

Justiciability refers to the types of matters that the federal courts can adjudicate. If a case is "nonjusticiable." a federal court cannot hear it. To be justiciable, the court must not be offering an advisory opinion, the plaintiff must have standing, and the issues must be ripe but neither moot nor violative of the political question doctrine.

The Supreme Court upheld this doctrine with Trump's travel ban. Immigration is the purview of the President as relegated by Congress and only within the confine of the laws Congress established dealing with those issues.

There is no DACA law.
There is no DAPA law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The judges ruling will be overturned.

Maybe. Like it or not, this is our judicial process.

There is no DACA law.
There is no DAPA law.

Why do you keep saying this? It matters not in this argument. The judge ruled. The ball's in the Trump administration's court now.

Sorry you hate our judicial system. But, your hate is not my problem, though. This will play out the way it's going to play out.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because they are not laws contrary to what this one judge thinks. As for the ball being in Trumps court it is, and as we told you several times now the DOJ is appealing the ruling.

As law enforcement I have worked extensively with our judicial system. Next time maybe get your facts right instead of trying to deflect when you are called out by launching personal attacks when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

a reply to: Xcathdra

As for the ball being in Trumps court it is, and as we told you several times now the DOJ is appealing the ruling.

As I told you, the Trump Adminstration has 20 days to restate their justification or appeal.

Because they are not laws contrary to what this one judge thinks.

This is the second judge to use the APA to require reasonable justification. They appealed that one, and got the same ruling this time.

Contrary to your whining, the justice system is doing it's job, and so are the judges checking and balancing this adminstration "arbitrary and capricius" actions.

"Garaufis said the administration can rescind DACA. But the judge said the reasoning behind its decision was flawed. The Justice Department argues that DACA was an illegal overreach by the Obama White House, and was likely to be overturned in court."

Garaufis, however, said the government was "erroneous" in its conclusion that DACA was unconstitutional and that it violated the Administrative Procedures and Immigration and Nationality acts. He said President Trump's termination of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious."

www.npr.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No its not. It is overstepping its authority into a realm they have no business being in.

Also the court giving 20 days has nothing to do with what the AG announced. The DOJ is appealing the ruling because the judge doesnt have the authority to do what he did.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Why do you keep saying this? It matters not in this argument.

So you think any judge on any court can do whatever he wants, regardless of law?

Could a judge order Trump to immediately execute all illegal immigrants?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

DOJ is appealing the ruling because the judge doesnt have the authority to do what he did.

Fine, but this is the 2nd Judge to call the action "arbitrary and capricious", according to the Administrative Procedural Act.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Legally trump can ignore this judge if he sees fit to do so. Since HE is the Executive branch head.