Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

a reply to: ATruGod


Can you read? I didn't say it was a "law". But contract law is thing, btw. "A law" isn't the same as "The Law".

It one thing to change the rules, it's another to change the rule of law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It would do my heart good to see President Trump send out a tweet and ask for one of these "judges" to show him where in the U S Constitution the judicial branch of our government has anything to do with the establishment or the enforcement of immigration law.
The Constitution gives the power to create law to the congress and the enforcement to the President. The only function of even the Supreme court is to validate the laws with respect to the Constitution.

This is the "backbone" of the separation of powers which our founders were so wise to set up.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A "contract" that contradicts LAW is a null and void "contract".

Giving illegal immigrants work permits is unconstitutional and against the law.

Obama overstepped his authority when he used Executive Orders to create DACA and DAPA. DAPA was declared unconstitutional in a court of law and now DACA needs to be declared the same.

The President only has the authority to decide who/who not to deport and who to give refugee status to. Refugee status can only be given to a very specific group of people (such as those who are in specific danger from a specific country). You can't declare everyone who is undocumented as a refugee. While a President, such as Obama, may decide not to deport certain people, he certainly DID NOT have the authority to give them legal status, much less work permits.

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.

That just takes the cake!!!!!! LOVE IT!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Judges run the nation.

hmmf.

Go figure. . . . .

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.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy



Congress needs to start doing their jobs.

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.

Several federal Judges also tried to stop the travel ban. They were slapped down and were shown to either not understand the law or be so blatantly political that they went against the law to push their ideologies.
So I have no problem understanding that this latest judge is confused about his powers. Ultimately Trump will win this too. In fact, he should just ignore the judge, who has no constitutional authority on this matter, and have the SC handle it when ready for completeness.

a reply to: Deetermined


Good for you, that you know more than 3 federal judges!

a reply to: UKTruth

Judges did stop Trump's travel ban, and his administration re-wrote it 2 times before it finally passed. And even when the 3rd draft was finally passed, it was kinda dumb, because it was supposed to be an "emergency ban" to last for 18 months, that took almost 18 months to instate!

a reply to: odzeandennz


DACA isn't a law.

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?

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?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good for you, that you know more than 3 federal judges!

That's because I know how to read (law) and comprehend what I read without the help of the media. Have you even bothered trying to read the law on this topic? Pffft. I think we all know the answer to that!

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?

Seriously? You have absolutely no idea how many federal judges there are, do you?

a reply to: Deetermined


You should write a letter to Trump and ask him to give you a judicial bench position in the DOJ!

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 didnt realize Venezuela and N. Korea were Muslim nations. Also if its a "muslim ban" then why are 99% of muslims not affected by the ban?

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?

You are confusing the US attorneys with judges. For those who dont know a US attorney is a political appointee. The standard practice for an incoming administration is to let the US Attorneys know if they are staying on or not needed. The same holds for all appointed positions. When a President wins reelections its a matter of course for all cabinet secretaries to tender their resignations thereby allowing the President the option of hiring them instead of firing them.


Potus does nominate judges and the Senate confirms them.

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.

originally posted by: Vector99

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?

DACA is CACA

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.