Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

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?

Jesus H Christ silly, those countries were on a list created by the Obama admin, and did not include many other majority Muslim countries.

Let that tired old talking point die.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

You're just moving the goalposts at this point. Why? This is almost dogmatic.

a reply to: Wardaddy454


I'm not moving the goal posts. What goal posts?

I'm just explaining, suggesting the proce3ss behind the judge's decision...Which was: the Trump administration hasn't provided a good enough reason to rescind DACA. That was what he said! Rescind what? A (social) contract (of sorts).

Do you doubt that was his ruling? He didn't say DACA was constitutional or unconstitutional, which appears to be your goal posts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Is the Constitution a contract?

Yes, it is. It's a contract between the people/states and the Federal government. It establishes the government in return for the benefit of the people/states, with restrictions on what the Federal government can and cannot do. Without the Constitution, the Federal government does not legally exist. Without the Constitution, there is no President to make Executive Orders nor Congress to pass laws.

Therefore, no contract with the Federal government which violates the Constitution is valid.

DACA is a contract of a sorts too.

However, it is an illegal contract. Obama did not have the legal authority to grant what was promised, per the Constitution. Only Congress gets to make law, and DACA defied the laws passed by Congress by granting a type of amnesty that Congress did not approve, in direct opposition to the laws which Congress did pass.

Here's you a contract: I will sell you, Sookiechacha, the Brooklyn Bridge for $100! I just made a contract; all you need do is agree to it. But it is not binding, because I do not own the Brooklyn Bridge and therefore cannot sell it to you. It is an illegal contract. In the same light, Obama could not grant amnesty to DACA recipients, because he did not have the legal authority to do so. Only Congress can change the law that says illegal immigrants must be deported, because only Congress can make such a law.

If Congress passes a DACA bill, it becomes the law of the land and is enforceable. But the President does not have the power to do so. The President is not Congress.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

However, it is an illegal contract.

I understand that's your opinion. But, that opinion hasn't been upheld by the courts yet. Perhaps, SCOTUS may agree with your assessment.

Right now, the court is giving the Trump administration 20 days to show cause.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

However, it is an illegal contract.

I understand that's your opinion. But, that opinion hasn't been upheld by the courts yet. Perhaps, SCOTUS may agree with your assessment.

Right now, the court is giving the Trump administration 20 days to show cause.

I got a cause. Executive privlidge. then tell the judge he is fired for obstruction.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

George Bush was no more a republican than in name only. Sr raised taxes after saying he would not. His son was a dummy too.

a reply to: yuppa

George Bush was no more a republican than in name only.

Some hard core Republican lament the same about Trump. 20 10 years from now, some young up and coming ATS poster is going to say same about some Trump appointed judge! LOL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

each generation after just keep getting dumber and dumber so you got a point.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I understand that's your opinion.

And I understand you desperately want it to not be true.

But, there's this little statement in the Constitution that says it is:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That's Article 1, Section 1, the very first line after the Preamble. DACA cannot be a law, because Congress never passed it. A President passed it... a judge passed it... but neither of them have legislative ability. Congress can pass it and it would be completely Constitutional... most of the Republicans in Congress want to pass it... so tell me, why will not a single Democrat in Congress vote for a DACA bill? It would only take a couple Democratic Senators and the whole mess is fixed. Why can Congress not do that?

I really want to know... why? I keep hearing Pelosi, Schumer, Watters, Williams, all bemoaning what Trump did, but they are the ones who make the laws and they won't do it!

Why? Why why why why why?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

and it has been pointed out to you a reason is not needed. It is an executive order by potus (obama) and as such can be ended by potus (Trump).

The judges ruling treats the EO as if it were a law passed by Congress and it is not. The only thing unconstitutional was the Obama EO creating DACA.

These are the facts.

Not sure why you cant comprehend it.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Sookiechacha

each generation after just keep getting dumber and dumber so you got a point.

And yet, technology soars.

a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

Why are you making this about me? I don't have the judge's ear! Why aren't the White House lawyers arguing your points? Why aren't they arguing jurisdiction, like you say?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They are, but the wheels of justice grind slowly. That's the whole idea. Delay, delay, delay, keep things from happening until the political winds change, then go on about business. It's about as corrupt a tactic as I can imagine, and the DNC are experts at using it.

The only reason anyone is putting you in the picture is that you seem unwilling to even consider the possibility that a judge can be corrupt. They can. Trust me. I'm from Alabama.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


That's your only excuse/argument? Judges that rule against Trump are corrupt?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

Why are you making this about me? I don't have the judge's ear! Why aren't the White House lawyers arguing your points? Why aren't they arguing jurisdiction, like you say?

Because your position ignores basic understandings of government 101. You are advocating for a position that is not supported by law and are trying to defend this judges actions while ignoring facts.

As for your comment about White House lawyers you just proved our point of not knowing the basics. White House counsel doesnt deal with this type of issue. The DOI and AG on the other hand do and since you missed it AG Sessions already announced legal action on this judges ruling. The AG is responsible for representing this administration in court and is spelled out in their job description on the DOJ website. Failure to comply is why AAG Sally Yates got her ass fired.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck


That's your only excuse/argument? Judges that rule against Trump are corrupt?

Thats your defense/argument? A judge who rules against Trump must somehow be right and not make an idiotic ruling?

The judges ruling makes an assumption not supported by fact nor precedence.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's your only excuse/argument? Judges that rule against Trump are corrupt?

Judges that rule against the Constitution are corrupt. You really don't read my posts, do you?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

...since you missed it AG Sessions already announced legal action on this judges ruling.

OK, that's what I get for turning off the news and watching a few nice documentaries... I haven't heard about that! Got a link so I can read it for myself?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcathdra

...since you missed it AG Sessions already announced legal action on this judges ruling.

OK, that's what I get for turning off the news and watching a few nice documentaries... I haven't heard about that! Got a link so I can read it for myself?

TheRedneck

Sessions rips federal judge for 'improperly' reinstating DACA, 'eviscerating' executive power

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday unloaded on a federal judge who ordered the administration to reinstate the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy last week, saying the ruling was "improper" and vowing to keep up enforcement efforts against illegal immigration "aggressively."

Sessions added that the judge had effectively "eviscerated" the legal authority of the executive branch and Congress, and strongly suggested the administration would appeal the ruling.

click link for yadda yadda yadda...


The other part some people are ignoring or are just unaware is the 2 previous judges rulings only allowed new enrollment. Their rulings kept the current enrollment. The latest judge when an illegal immigrant to far by reinstating the entire program, including forcing a reopening of enrollment.