Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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.

You did not answer my question. A contract requires at least two recognized parties to enter into notarized association.

The only signature on the executive memorandum was Barack Hussein Obama II. It was not a contract nor legislation enacted by the federal checks and balances.

As non-legislation, a member of the judiciary is not in scope to determine if an executive action can be maintained or dismissed. It does not matter how compelling it is. It is judicial overreach and I hope that the Chief Executive shrugs it off and goes on his way.

If Trump refuses to comply, what law has he broken?

a reply to: Teikiatsu


A stamped/approved DACA application should suffice.

The government has many, many social contracts.

As non-legislation, a member of the judiciary is not in scope to determine if an executive action can be maintained or dismissed. It does not matter how compelling it is. It is judicial overreach and I hope that the Chief Executive shrugs it off and goes on his way.

If this is true, then why did the Trump administration get taken to court over it, 3 times, and lost 3 times? Why didn't White House lawyers argue jurisdiction?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

The rebuke came in scotus affirmation of the ban. The standard set by the supreme court many decades ago says when a constitutional authority belongs to one branch of government then challenging those actions are a political question and not a legal one. It also affirmed the precedent by scotus that authority delegated to potus by congress via law (Mississippi vs Johnson) was not subject to legal challenges. Finally greater leeway was given to Potus in the form of having access to classified information that is not available to the general public nor available to all members of Congress.

Because of that second guessing the presidents decision in this area is a non starter and scotus sides with the President in that regard. Because these were reiterated by scotus it was a big FU to the lower federal courts. Justice Thomas also noted in his portion that district courts issuing nationwide injunctions goes beyond their authority and if the appeals courts dont correct it then scotus would eventually have to.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

DACA is not a contract. DACA is an unconstitutional interpretation of existing immigration laws that Obama failed to persuade congress to change.

Trump was taken to court because blue states wanted to try and preserve Obamas legacy and dont like anything Trump is doing. It is there way to "resist" the Trump admin by using the courts to tie his agenda up in federal court until he leaves office in 2024.

As for the judges they ignored precedent / scotus rulings in ll cases. It is why they continually lost when rulings went against them. That included scotus reinstating the ban months before it was scheduled to even hear the case.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The rebuke came in scotus affirmation of the ban.

In your delusional Trump spin jockey world maybe. The travel ban had been watered down and changed to add other countries that weren't predominately Muslim, like North Korea and Venezuela, to offset Trump's racist rhetoric that poisoned his first set of travel bans. SCOTUS never rebuked the lower courts!

DACA is not a contract.

con·tract
[contract]

NOUN
a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

DACA is a contract, in every sense of the word, even though it also may be an executive order, a policy, a program or incorporated into law at some point.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yup... the rebuke was in the ruling and DACA is not a contract.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

DACA was a Illegally created contract then. Why? Because to make a contract with a foreighner requires COngressional and senatorial approval. Its no different than a treaty in that case.

a reply to: Xcathdra

the rebuke was in the ruling

Cite it!

Otherwise, you're FAKE NEWS!

a reply to: yuppa

DACA was a Illegally created contract then.

3 federal judges disagree with you.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra

the rebuke was in the ruling

Cite it!

Otherwise, you're FAKE NEWS!

Didnt bother reading it did you. It is only 92 pages long.

Start near the bottom of page 2 with the section labeled Held:
SCOTUS ruling Trump vs Hawaii et all

Hopefully the page 3 start wont tax your system to much.If you need me to explain it to you so you can understand it let me know.

As for the fake news comment I refer you back to my ignorant ass comment.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: yuppa

DACA was a Illegally created contract then.

3 federal judges disagree with you.

3 obama era judges who hate trump. they matter not.

a reply to: yuppa

Why do they hate trump?
How do you know they feel that way about trump?

a reply to: Xcathdra

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.

A lot of people don't seem to understand (or don't want to understand maybe) why DACA is unconstitutional and why Trump discontinued it. He was actually doing the DACA recipients a favor. A lawsuit was approaching the Supreme Court to show that DACA was unconstitutional because it opposed Congressional action instead of supporting it. Congress never agreed to change the law requiring DACA recipients, as illegal immigrants, to be deported. That suit was dropped when Trump announced he was ending the program, giving himself discretion to continue the program for 6 months while Congress passed a law making it Constitutional.

But of course, Congress refused to pass a DACA bill.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that DACA is unconstitutional, which I believe they would on the grounds mentioned above, Trump would have no choice but to immediately order ICE to begin deportation of all DACA recipients. Because of Obama's Executive Order, we know exactly where they are, making them about as vulnerable as possible. Congress could fix this easily just by doing their job and passing a DACA bill, but they won't. There are enough Republicans against it to require some Democratic support, but not one Democrat in Congress is willing to negotiate in good faith. Not one.

Trump and the Republicans are the best friends DACA recipients have in the US government... most of them want to allow amnesty. The worst enemy the DACA recipients have in the US government is the Democrats: the ones who want to allow DACE recipients to be deported over a bunch of political butthurt.

I'm to the point of not caring. If people want to play games like this, so be it. Deport 'em.

TheRedneck

Still no mention of the potus power as related to daca and his decision to let folks simmer in their hatred.

Have a heart for your fellow man,people.

a reply to: Xcathdra

BS! I read page 2 and 3 and didn't see anywhere where SCOTUS rebuked, or even mentioned the lower courts, unless you think the lower courts are "The Plaintiffs!"

Besides the fact that lower courts aren't the plaintiffs here, this is an especially preposterous claim, seeing how the (Muslim) travel ban that SCOTUS looked at wasn't the same travel ban that the lower courts rejected. It was a 3rd draft, watered down and it added North Korea and Venezuela, so that it appeared NOT to be a Muslim ban anymore!

You are FAKE NEWS!


a reply to: yuppa

I'm not going to go look who the other 2 judges were, but this most recent recent judge to reject Trump's DACA rescinsion, Judge Bates, was appoint by GW Bush. Jeeeze, is everyone who lived through the Obama adminstration irrelevant to you?

I think you have Obama Dangment Syndrom!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then you didnt understand what you read. Why dont you take another swing and actually read it this time.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Telling me there's something there, when there isn't, is GASLIGHTING. Your're FAKE NEWS!

a reply to: Kharron

Actually there is no need to appeal as the order by the judge should be ignored because daca is not a law it is an executive order put in place by previous potus so current president as head of executive branch has every right to void out daca order .

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No he doesn't because it is not a contract and they are not citizens which means they do not have same rights as citizens. Daca recipients are children of illegal aliens and that makes then illegal aliens too.

a reply to: proteus33


Is the Constitution a contract? It is. It's a social contract. And, if you happen to live in a community with a mini government called an HOA, for example, your CC&Rs, Covenants, Conditions and Rules, are your constitution, according to state laws governing HOAs, and considered also a contract, for example. If your HOA violates the CC&Rs, you file "breech of contract" complaints, for violating your "constitutional" rights, according to your mini government.

DACA is a contract of a sorts too. In this case the judge isn't upholding the Trump administration's national security claims because they haven't shown "cause". If it was just a matter of Trump's constitutional authority, "cause" to break the "contract" wouldn't necessarily be a reasonable argument for denial of the administration's rescission. The court is asking the Trump adminstration to clarify their reason for rescinsion of what, for lack of better terms on my part, is a contract between the federal government and 800,000 residents, their employers, landlords, mortgage holders and family members.


Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I've played with some, enough to know the law is layered and complicated.