Another federal judge has overruled the Trump administration's efforts to end a popular immigration program -- this time saying the government has to accept new applications
Judge John Bates concluded that the wind-down of DACA was "arbitrary and capricious" because the Department of Homeland Security failed to "adequately explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful."
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
cdn.cnn.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
So another appeal then?
Hmmmmmm....
Judicial overreach, ironical that the judge's own ruling is arbitrary and capricious
MAKE AMERICA TACO
Fucking this. What an idiot with with absolutely no self-awareness.
They didn't properly explain how DACA was unlawful? How about because it's not a fucking law in the first place, they don't have to explain shit. It's an ARBITRARY declaration of policy by a former president.
>judge orders reinstatement of law previous president had no authority to institute
Good thing a hierarchy of courts exist for exactly this reason
Since when can't the Chief Executive rescind an Executive order. This is so clearly overreach and infringes upon the authority of the Executive Branch. This ruling is a clear threat to the separation of power among the branches. Leftist judges are really becoming dangerous, making rulings based upon ideology rather than the law.
This will be overruled by SCOTUS. With that said, Trump must ignore this ruling. Complying with this ruling is tantamount to accepting that any and all aspects and powers of the Executive branch are subject to capricious rulings.
The court is forcing a Constitutional crisis. Trump must ignore this ruling. Let's see the judge enforce it.
In all seriousness why does a law have to be unlawful to be changed?
What if we just don't like it?
It doesn't. This judge is so far out of bounds. There isn't even a pretense of impartiality or an unbiased application of the law. This is just a flagrant ideological ruling, not the law. This is rule of men, not rule of law.
man do we need to break out the fucking school house rock video?
What I want to know is, at what point do the other two branches call the bluff of judicial review?
Trump really needs to take a stand on this one because it is such an arbitrary and capricious ruling. For the sake of the separation of powers and the rule of law, this kind of flagrant overreach needs to be confronted. There is nothing wrong with judicial review when the only standard is constitutionalality and precedent. Judicial review becomes a problem when the rulings are no longer based upon the law, but on the ideology of the judge. This has to be stopped. I really hope that Trump stands up to this.
>There is nothing wrong with judicial review when the only standard is constitutionalality and precedent.
Well, it's not in the constitution. It's a power the courts gave to themselves and no one really questioned it.
hos thr fuck does a judge have more power then the president
I think that challenging judicial review in principle is a non-starter. It has been accepted for so long by all branches that it is embedded in the law and government.
It is completely reasonable, however, to ignore a ruling that attempts to encroach on what is clearly a power of the Executive branch...in this case to rescind an Executive Order. The court has no say in the power of the Chief Executive to rescind an Executive Order. The Judicial Branch, in this case is trying to diminish the Executive Branch and aggrandizement itself by consolidating what is clearly the prerogative of the Chief Executive. This is a power grab that cannot be tolerated.
I'm so glad I voted in all these judges.
They're really making sure my voice matters in politics.
>aggrandizement
*aggrandize
I agree with basically everything you said. However, what recourse does the executive have in this case? Say that this goes to the supreme court and their ruling is "fuck drumpf and fuck white people". I think this is very unlikely to happen, but if it did, what could the president even do at that point?
Judicial review is an assumed power on the congress. Now they're trying to do the exact same thing on the executive.
The wall just got ten feet taller
That is why I am saying that Trump must ignore this particular ruling. If he complies with it, he is tacitly accepting the transfer of what is clearly a power of the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch. This is worth a Constitutional Crisis. Once it starts, however, there is no way to know how the Constitutional Crisis is going to end... it could end in Judicial reform...it could end in an attempt to impeach Trump. Who knows. I feel very strongly that for the sake of the rule of law, however, that this is a battle that must be waged. The Judicial Branch must not be given the latitude to assume the powers of the other two branches.
Isn't DACA an Obama era executive order?
If Obama can create it, why exactly can't Trump end it?
because trump is illegitimate and was installed by a foreign power
He should ignore the court order and petition SCOTUS to fast track the case. It is of paramount importance, in my view, however that he does not comply with this ruling during the interim before SCOTUS hears the case. To do so would legitimize the power grab, diminish the Executive Branch, and tacitly accept that the court has the right to transfer Executive Branch powers to itself. Compliance will legitimize capricious, ideological rulings and embolden judges who act outside of the law.
'The Judicial Branch must not be given the latitude to assume the powers of the other two branches."
Agree completely. This is judicial overreach, like Obama, legislation by fiat.
The executive branch said it was rescinding an (illegal) executive order. Now another activist federal district court judge says, "Wesayso."
Marbury v. Madison did not contemplate making the judicial branch the supreme arbiter of political questions; in fact, as a `political question' the courts should have stayed out of it.
President Trump should tell his cabinet to proceed with dismantling DACA, and tell the judiciary, "Your order, you enforce it."
>a president can't undo an executive order which a previous president did
really makes you think
drumpf btfo
>I can take people out of their dollar payed homes because I'm god according to a paper written by weed farmers.
I really hope that the lawyers in the Executive Branch are thinking this way. Compliance with this ruling would be a real threat to the separation of powers.
I dare you to make less sense.
I'm so sick and tired of these fucking illegal spics. They all need to go back these fucking subhumans, I'm at my wits end here these judges are communist scum.
How in the fuck can a judge say an Unconstitutional action by the President of the United States, who has no authority to make laws, is completely free to continue?
Eminent domain maybe?
Well, that is a can of worms. Eminent Domain for a public project is one thing, using it to transfer property to another private owner because the court thinks it is a better use is quite another.
>Say that this goes to the supreme court and their ruling is "fuck drumpf and fuck white people". I think this is very unlikely to happen, but if it did, what could the president even do at that point?
checked, and that's literally what's going to happen
>Another federal judge has overruled
Yeah, already been proved multiple times that this isn't how it works. The judge could be censured.
No, I really cannot imagine SCOTUS upholding this ruling, even with it's current composition. It might be a 5 -4 ruling, but I am actually inclined to think that it will be a plurality of Justices, not just a majority who side with the Executive Branch on this matter. They would have to completely overturn or ignore two decades worth of rulings about powers of the Executive Branch to uphold this capricious ruling about forcing the Chief Executive to restart DACA and enjoining him from ending it.
This ruling is so flagrantly bad, this Federal judge should be impeached.
Anyone have a link to the ruling itself? I like reading these things.
i agree with you but i have a feeling the judge will rule against the executive branch, and liberals will rejoice at the collapsing of our governmental institutions
jesus out of all the shilling by news networks on this, only CNN actually had the balls to post the decision
cdn.cnn.com
the absolute state of democracy
>the collapsing of our governmental institutions
But this is what you want, isn't it? Small government and all that.
This decision is unlawful. Trump had the absolute authority to undue executive orders. Time to follow in the steps of his favorite president Jackson and ignore the courts.
Why bother voting when unelected judges get to decide everything?
OK, the ruling is actually reasonable, which these things usually are, which is why I read them instead of the press.
The sticking point is the Administrative Procedure Act. The perversion here is that the law was actually passed back in the day to limit the freedoms of federal programs and agencies which otherwise had (Congress felt) too much independent authority. Now, instead, it is being used to maintain federal programs and agencies which have too much independent authority. It's not even ironic, since that's how the status quo works. The organism protects itself.
The ruling specifically says
1) The order to rescind DACA was not unlawful
2) Even if it didn't pass APA muster, it could still be rescinded for other reasons
3) There are no obligations to continue the program for new participants
The case must continue. This ruling is essentially saying, "I don't think these standards are met but it isn't up to me. In the meantime, existing people protected by DACA must remain protected by DACA, until such time as a final ruling is made."
This is a good decision, even if I disagree with it. It is not overreach.
A country where a judge has more authority over a president clearly is beyond any form of salvation.
>govt can resume getting more fingerprints, photos, and addresses of more illegals
>this is somehow bad
It's an executive order, this us clear overreach.
This
Exactly
Aren't Executive Orders perfectly able to be arbitrary and capricious? Where in the Constitution does it say that the executive must explain his every action in formal logic? Did Barry explain DACA in a way that can't be called arbitrary and, ESPECIALLY, capricious?
End the Judiciary tbqh fampai.
>Time to follow in the steps of his favorite president Jackson
It's been that time for a long time now
Fuck banks, fuck (border-hopping) Indians too
>Leftist judges are really becoming dangerous
My dude this has been a problem for at least a century. Why are niggers in class with whites? A court. Why are faggots allowed to marry? Courts.
It was by design of FDR basically, you know the guy that actually created concentration caps on US soil, seized property without compensation or due process, etc.
The liberal hero.
Just third world my shit up senpai
>what is SCOTUS
fuck off kike
>good decision
>DACA was never constitutional
>libshit judge can ignore the constitution
eat shit faggot.
You just now realized the (((courts))) are an enemy fifth column?
>Judge John Bates
On September 4, 2001, Bates was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, vacated by Stanley S. Harris. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on December 11, 2001, and received his commission on December 14, 2001.[2]
Fucking george bush nominee.
Fuck the bushes. Throw them in jail.
>I think this is very unlikely to happen, but if it did, what could the president even do at that point?
The answer is in your digits, my child.
I thought Trump was a Nazi tyrant dictator fascist controlling the world's most racist nation, so how is this possible?
DACA was implemented by executive fiat, the judicial branch has no say here whatsoever.
it is why we were so mad about obama using EOs to begin with, they are not laws
>Illegitimate
Kinda like your donkey meme flag? show your leaf faggot
Not every decision I agree with. This is not surprising, since I disagree with at least 60% of everyone on something, but I can still suppose that their positions are thought-out and make sense.
His reasoning is clear and sound. Did you read it? Can you explain which part of the decision you take exception to?
I don't think DACA was unconstitutional since the power over immigration vested in both Congress and the Executive branch is pretty clear.
I'm not going to argue with you to defend the decision because I don't agree with it, but if you say it's a bunch of bullshit then you're wrong.
>Time to follow in the steps of his favorite president Jackson and ignore the courts.
And hopefully he can Trail of Tears some shitskins too.
this jews have packed the courts with their shills.
>what do I take exception with
oh, I don't know, the part that isn't constitutional at all being ignored by a judge?
>but Obama said it was magically ok!
no. SCOTUS shouldnt be needed to reprimand idiot hawaii judges.
>Administrative Procedure Act
Doesn't apply to the President. Executive Order came from the president.
>"I don't think these standards are met
But that's beyond retarded
The DACA program was crafted by DHS.
I agree with you. But I can also see how someone might think so. This is why we have courts instead of duels, to sort these things out.
fuck you, I hope they deport you first Pedro.
>EOs can ignore congress now
>fed lib judges can ignore the president and congress now
no.
Back to Mexico beaner