Federal judge says Trump must fully restore DACA

a reply to: TheRedneck

You really don't read my posts, do you?

Why should I? You obviously don't understand the judge's ruling. You all are fighting me, as if it was my ruling. I'm merely reiterating the judge's ruling and comparing that ruling to contract law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you! It's about time Sessions got off his south-bound end and did something... now let's see if that end is as big as his mouth. I'm not exactly a fan any more... but at least he did the easy part: he talked about it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're right; I don't understand it. I don't see how anyone could. Exactly what part of "Congress makes the laws" are you having trouble with?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I don't know what's so hard to understand? From your FOX NEWS article:

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal law that prohibits the federal government from enacting new policies -- or getting rid of old ones -- for reasons that are "arbitrary and capricious," or lacking any rational basis.

Trump's lawyers have argued that because DACA was created by executive action under the Obama administration, similar executive action by the Trump administration should be able to quickly rescind it.

But the judge concluded that under the APA, the Trump administration's lawyers had offered only a "conclusory assertion that a prior policy [DACA] is illegal, accompanied by a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions." Bates added that this approach "simply will not do," although he emphasized that there is nothing that would prevent the administration from ending DACA if it could provide a workable justification.

But, that's just too high of a bar for this low bar administration!

Sessions countered Monday that federal judges were placing too high a bar on the executive branch to justify the policy change, despite Bates' arguments that thousands of people had come to rely on DACA.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

From your FOX NEWS article:

I know this may be hard to understand, but follow me here... news channels do not make law!

There is only one law, one code, of the United States. If it ain't in there, it don't exist... and Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazzera, AP, none of these can change that!

The APA you refer to is 5 US §§ 500 to 596. I see nothing in there that limits Executive Orders, or that provides any judge, up to and including Supreme Court Justices, the ability to make any law or codify any Executive Order into law.

Please, take a few moments and point out to me the Subchapter and Section where this is stated.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

know this may be hard to understand, but follow me here... news channels do not make law!

What's wrong with you? The article is citing the judge, Judge Bates, and Jeff Sessions. The article makes no attempt or pretense to "make law".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Judge Bates does not make law.

Attorney General Sessions does not make law.

Only one organization makes law: The US Congress. I linked you to the applicable law being invoked by the judge. Where in it does it limit Presidential Executive Orders, or where in it is a judge allowed to circumvent the other two branches of government's ability to make policy?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Only one organization makes law: The US Congress.

and obama

at least that is what i heard.jk

a reply to: TheRedneck


The judge isn't making laws, he's applying the law. According to Session, he's holding Trump to too high a standard. Imagine that, a judge holding the President of United States to a high standard!

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The judge isn't making laws, he's applying the law.

Is DACA a law?

No. It is an executive order that contradicts the law passed by Congress.

Is the judge enforcing DACA as a law?

Yes, and he is therefore contradicting the law passed by Congress, while also trying to usurp the power of the Executive. That, sir, is tyranny.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Is DACA a law?

DACA is policy. The Administrative Procedure Act is law.

Sigh...

But the judge concluded that under the APA, the Trump administration's lawyers had offered only a "conclusory assertion that a prior policy [DACA] is illegal, accompanied by a hodgepodge of illogical or post hoc policy assertions." Bates added that this approach "simply will not do," although he emphasized that there is nothing that would prevent the administration from ending DACA if it could provide a workable justification.

Now, Jeff Sessions isn't complaining about the law, he's complaining about the judge holding the Trump administration to too high a bar in showing a workable justification for rescinding DACA, affecting the lives of 800,000 residents, their families, employers, etc.

For those unable to follow what occurred.

2 Federal judges ruled DACA can be closed to NEW members. They said the current members, for the time being, are protected while Congress tries to figure this out. What the newest judge did was went beyond the 2 previous rulings and reinstated it in its entirety. That means people not covered by DACA could apply for status under it.

That is what is causing the problem.

The previous judges said those in it can stay and the latest judge decided to reinstate the whole thing.

Again - that is outside his authority.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Executive orders are not law. They ONLY affect the executive branch and CANNOT be used to bypass Congress. This is what Obama did when he said he had a phone and a pen.Congress denied the DACA law and said no.

Obama then issued an EO modifying existing immigration law to put DACA in place.

This is why DAPA was found unconstitutional. If DAPA is unconstitutional then so is DACA as DACA was the framework for DAPA.

As for Sessions yes he is complaining about the law. Trump gave Congress like 6 months to get legislation worked out and Congress failed. DACA is done.

a reply to: Xcathdra


SCOTUS didn't rule on DAPA. The high court was deadlocked on the issue, 4 to 4.

A lower court ruled DAPA was unconstitutional. And that judge's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, so, the "court is out" on the actual constitutionality of DAPA. This case will likely go to SCOTUS too.

What I want to know is why you take the judge who ruled DAPA was unconstitutional as being correct, but the judge who ruled that Trump administration needs a better justification to end DACA, he's corrupt? I think you have a judicial bias. Judges who don't rule the way you like are corrupt and judges who do rule the way you want are golden.

In this case, constitutionality doesn't seem to be the issue. Sessions isn't screaming about the Constitution, he's screaming about a high threashold of justification. I understand you think DACA is unconstitutional and that's that. But, apparently the justice system doesn't see it that way. Those are the facts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

DACA is policy. The Administrative Procedure Act is law.

Right! I think you finally got it!

DACA is not a law. No judge has the authority to declare a policy as having the same effect as a law, which is what this judge did. The President has authority, sole authority I might add, to make policy as long as policy does not violate the law or the Constitution.

DACA violates the law. Immigration law passed by Congress says that anyone who illegally comes to the United States is to be deported. Obama himself admitted that he did not have the legal authority to create DACA, and he was right. No President can make policy that violates the law.

Trump rescinded DACA, as he should have, asking Congress to make it a law so it could be constitutional. Congress refused to enact DACA. Now a judge has decided, in effect, that if Congress won't enact a DACA law, he will. THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nowhere in US 5 did I find anything that said a judge can demand that an unconstitutional policy cannot be rescinded. I even asked you, twice, to find it and linked you to the exact law. You apparently couldn't find it either... but for some strange reason you believe it.

Since Xcathdra brought it up, Trump rescinded DAPA as well... where was the outrage? DAPA was stopped by a District Court injunction, which is not supposed to happen unless the plaintiff can show a high probability of success. The Supreme Court did not rule; it was a split decision. Now it is moot because Trump suspended it completely. Therefore, another District Judge has already decided that there was sufficient evidence of DAPA being unconstitutional to warrant an injunction, and that injunction was not overturned. And as Xcathdra said, if DAPA is unconstitutional, so is DACA. Both grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in violation of immigration law.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I don't care what you think. The constitutionality of DACA is not on the table. What is on the table is the Trump administration's justification to end DACA. Jeff Sessions isn't complaining about jurisdiction or that the judge isn't addressing the Constitution properly. Jeff Sessions is complaining that the judge set the bar too high for the Trump administration to justify their rescission of DACA.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Male Bovine Excrement! Constitutionality is always "on the table."

For the 4th time, show me the code. If you can't look in the code I linked you to, then you cannot show where this judge is ruling constitutionally or not.

Yes, I am stating my opinion and you are stating yours; that's what we do here. The difference is that yours is uninformed... show me the law!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Uhm no...

When scotus deadlocks the lower court decision stands. DAPA is unconstitutional and so is DACA.

DAPA is based on the framework of DACA. Like DACA, DAPA was not a law passed by Congress but was an EO issued by Obama. You cant change immigration law using EO's. The judge who ruled DACA has to be reinstated overstepped his authority and this has been explained to you numerous times now yet for some reason you dont seem to be understanding it.

Sessions is screaming about it and has stated the judges ruling eviscerates executive authority. Its why the DOJ is challenging the judges insane and incorrect ruling.

Constitutionality is the issue here. Only Congress can pass laws. Only potus can issue executive orders. The President cannot usurp Congressional constitutional authority. A judge cannot make a ruling that an EO is law.

Understand now?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I don't care what you think.

putting your head in the sand doesnt work. Facts are facts and you dont have the facts.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The constitutionality of DACA is not on the table.

It is and its constitutionality is what all this is about.

Potus does NOT need a reason to rescind an EO and a judge cannot rule an EO is law when Congress had nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

putting your head in the sand doesnt work. Facts are facts and you dont have the facts.

Tell it to the judge, not me! You guys seem to want to convince me to be upset with the judge's ruling, like you are. 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.

There's nothing more to argue here. The judge's ruling stands, and the Trump administration has 20 days to either come up with reasonable justification or appeal to a high court.