Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

A federal judge ruled Friday that the Trump administration must fully restore the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

In his 25-page opinion, Judge John Bates said the Trump White House had again failed to provide justification for its proposal to end the Obama-era program, under which nearly 800,000 people brought to the country illegally as children, known as "Dreamers," have received work permits and deferral from deportation.

The judge also said in his opinion that he has agreed to delay his ruling to give the Trump administration 20 days "to determine whether it intends to appeal the Court’s decision and, if so, to seek a stay pending appeal."

President Trump rescinded DACA in September, a decision Bates wrote in his opinion “was arbitrary and capricious” with legal judgment that was “inadequately explained.”

Bates further wrote that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia holds that if the Trump administration wishes to rescind the program, or take any other action for that matter, it must “give a rational explanation for its decision.”

click link for article...

So yeah... This judge is an idiot that needs to be impeached and removed from his position.

For starters DACA is NOT a law, contrary to the bitching being done by the ACLU. Secondly Obama created DACA by using an executive order. As such the President can rescind that executive order and no reason is required to do so.

This is not difficult to understand and is US government 101.

This is the 3rd idiot judge that has issued a similar ruling with all judges confusing an executive order for an actual law.

The ACLU, idiot judges and the ignorant left are really starting to piss me off on this topic. It looks like scotus is going to have to do another smack down on these activists judges. The 9th circus / 7th circuit finally got the hint from scotus regarding the temporary halt on people coming from several countries on the list. Both circuits recently smacked several district judges for trying to issue nationwide injunctions.

To those not aware a federal district judge is responsible for the district they are assigned to. A district judge exercising authority that is greater than an appeals circuit is not the way this works. An appeals circuit ruling only affects the states within their circuit and does not require other federal appeals circuits to rule in the same manner as the original circuit ruling. The purpose of district judges and appeals circuits are to garner a greater input on the legal question and how the different judges / circuits rule. Often times it results in conflicting legal arguments and this is by design. Nation wide injunctions were specifically discussed in the scotus ruling on the travel ban with Justice Thomas noting nation wide injunctions is beyond the district courts authority and if its not stopped then scotus would have to stop it.

I imagine when scotus gets this case on DACA the same thing is going to occur. DAPA (daca for parents) was found unconstitutional when Obama tried to put it in action. Since it is based on DACA the unconstitutional nature of DACA is present yet for some reason judges can seem to overcome their rectal-cranial inversion.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Judges can now uphold executive orders as written law?

Holy # this could get bad real fast.

a reply to: Xcathdra

well, one knows the law better than the other.
i can wager a guess who knows what.

what a circus.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Judges can now uphold executive orders as written law?

Holy # this could get bad real fast.

Apparently... I am curious how these judges would rule if Trump issued an EO limiting the authority of federal judges.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xcathdra

Judges can now uphold executive orders as written law?

Holy # this could get bad real fast.

Apparently... I am curious how these judges would rule if Trump issued an EO limiting the authority of federal judges.

Judge shop and they'll find one to uphold it.

These asshole judges should not only be removed from their role, but also charged with conspiracy against the USA and contempt of their own court.

Change the laws protecting judges and you will see less of these types of rulings.

a reply to: Vector99

Removing judges requires impeachment so the law is pretty well defined. However, with that said, their is a legal theory that says Potus might have the authority to actually fire federal judges. It is based on the fact that the President nominates federal judges for appointment and the Senate must then confirm them. As with other political appointees in the Executive branch potus has the authority to fire them without cause. If Congress wants to remove a person they must impeach and then convict. If potus wants to remove a person appointed by himself or another President its within his authority to do so. I have not found any instances of a previous President firing a district or appeals circuit judge.

It is an interesting theory that is based on precedent however I am not a fan of a President having that kind of authority. To see how bad of an idea that is research Venezuela and Turkey.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's late, I haven't read the article... but is this the case where the judge ruled on this a few months ago, and then gave the government 90 days or so to appeal or bring forth any arguments as to why DACA should not go on. In those 90 days the government wasn't able to bring anything forward and now the decision stands?

The same case?

a reply to: Xcathdra

To see how bad of an idea that is research Venezuela and Turkey.

We all know about Venezuela, but not many about Turkey. Here's a thread I made when Erdogan's referendum happened.

originally posted by: Kharron
It's late, I haven't read the article... but is this the case where the judge ruled on this a few months ago, and then gave the government 90 days or so to appeal or bring forth any arguments as to why DACA should not go on. In those 90 days the government wasn't able to bring anything forward and now the decision stands?

The same case?

Is DACA a LAW or an EO?

Yeah it is the same case, here's a similar article from Reuters:

U.S. District Judge John Bates in Washington, D.C., said he would stay Friday’s order, however, until August 23 to give the administration time to decide whether to appeal.

Bates first issued a ruling in April ordering the federal government to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, including taking applications. He stayed that ruling for 90 days to give the government time to better explain why the program should be ended.

On Friday Bates, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, a Republican, said he would not revise his previous ruling because the arguments of President Donald Trump’s administration did not override his concerns.

So, the government now has 20 more days to appeal, after having 90 days to challenge the decision. If there is a way for the government to make this happen, or show a good, legal reason for it, having basically two appeals is plenty of chance to show it.

Reute rs

a reply to: Kharron

Again, is DACA a LAW or an EO?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kharron

Again, is DACA a LAW or an EO?

No clue, do you want me to look it up for you? Or do you already have something to state? If you do go ahead and state it.

Whatever your concern is, do you think the federal judge missed that?

a reply to: Kharron

No clue, do you want me to look it up for you?

No, I want you to look it up for YOU.

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.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kharron

No clue, do you want me to look it up for you?

No, I want you to look it up for YOU.

I'd love to educate myself on this. Thanks for giving me a topic to read in the morning. Take care.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's legally binding under executive order only, and can be revoked by executive order as well. It doesn't get the privilege of seeing court because it isn't a law provided by legislation. That's kinda how laws work.

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.

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?

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.

Its not a LAW, We all do know how Laws are made right? Not by EO.