I don't even understand how this is possible. President A side steps Congress and the Constitution, then President B says, hold up, that's illegal, I'm ripping it up, Congress please address this matter.

If there were no names associated with the above timeline, President B is a hero and upholder of the Constitution, since it was Trump for some reason, that is not the case.

What The Fuck?


Judge rules against Trump administration on rescinding DACA

Fox Link

A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from turning back the Obama-era DACA program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation, Reuters reported.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, ruled that the program must stay intact while litigation is played out.

Alsup ordered that until a final judgment is reached, the program must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire.

Dreamers who have never received DACA protections, however, will not be allowed to apply, Alsup ordered. Trump last year ended the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He gave Congress until March to find a fix.

The Department of Justice said in a statement that the ruling does not change the department's position on the facts.

"DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DAPA," the statement read.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge after 26 states filed suit against the federal government and challenged the effort's legality.

Trump said he was willing to be flexible on DACA in finding an agreement as Democrats warned that the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants hung in the balance.

“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting with a bipartisan group of nearly two dozen lawmakers.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Trump appeared optimistic that Congress could reach a decision on the program.

Trump ended DACA in September. Immigration advocates estimate that more than 100 people a day lose the protected status because they did not renew their permits before the deadline, The Journal reported.

Trump is using border security—including a border wall-- as a bargaining chip and Democrats want to use their sway on the spending bill to protect immigrants under DACA.

The plaintiffs in the suit included, among others, attorneys general from California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and the University of California

Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, filed a motion seeking the preliminary injunction in November, saying that the move is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and causes “irreparable” harm to DACA recipients.

Becerra said in a statement late Tuesday that the ruling is a “huge step in the right direction.”

“America is and has been home to Dreamers who courageously came forward, applied for DACA and did everything the federal government asked of them,” he said. “They followed DACA’s rules, they succeeded in school, at work and in business, and they have contributed in building a better America.”

What a shock. They found that judge in San Francisco.

Liberal Clinton Appointee shopped to the San Fran circuit is what I read.

This is the lasting impact of Presidents.

We need to circumvent this activist judge!!

HK Ag

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I don't even understand how this is possible.

A federal judge in San Francisco.

Federal judges can simply make up whatever they want the law to be - if it gets struck down later, there are no repercussions for them.

You might read the decision and the facts presented before the rant.

It is not a decision on the merits, merely an injunction pending the litigation.

I dont care if it is an Injunction.. It was an illegal act in the first place. Constitution should go above Feelings.
I think something needs to be done about the Ultra Lib judges making decisions that are overturned 80% of the time.
I think if you are a Federal Circuit judge and you have more than 3 decisions overturned you should be made to Step down. That would mean you have no business on the bench making decisions based on constitutional laws.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You might read the decision and the facts presented before the rant.

It is not a decision on the merits, merely an injunction pending the litigation.

No need to read it. I've attended 6th grade civics class and watched this video as a kid. Both places I was taught that the Congress makes the laws. Additionally I learned that the Judicial Branch interprets the laws, and finally the Executive Branch enforces the laws.




I can't imagine what the judge said in his ruling that would change my view of the Constitution. I also don't care if some illegal suffers “irreparable” harm, they took many, many risks to get here illegally and continue to live her in violation of US laws, being deported is just on of those risks.

So what is contained in the judges decision and facts presented that turns our nations normal way of governance upside down? Do judges and Presidents now make the laws? Does the judge think that the plaintiff has such a strong case that it is likely that they will be able to argue for and win changing the whole way our countries laws are written?

Please explain these things to me, you're the lawyer.

quote:

Please explain these things to me

I think SNL is full of crazy libtards, but they did seem to get this skit right. It will explain it.

Dude,

You're so full of being pissed off that you aren't thinking this through.

Courts already interpret the law and under your thin view there's no need for judges or juries.

What you're getting pissed off about is truly nothing because it's exactly what Trump has already done - deferred taking DACA action. The president pushed off enforcement - also his perogative - until March.

The criteria this judge used were the same ones used by thousands of judges on a daily basis to issue temporary injunctions so there's no sinister set of rules in play. It's not a political mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:


No need to read it. I've attended 6th grade civics class and watched this video as a kid. Both places I was taught that the Congress makes the laws. Additionally I learned that the Judicial Branch interprets the laws, and finally the Executive Branch enforces the laws.

.......

So what is contained in the judges decision and facts presented that turns our nations normal way of governance upside down? Do judges and Presidents now make the laws? Does the judge think that the plaintiff has such a strong case that it is likely that they will be able to argue for and win changing the whole way our countries laws are written?

Please explain these things to me, you're the lawyer.

You might be better off with a more sophisticated view of these matters than 6th grade civics and this video.

One way to gain that is to read. You won’t likely understand every nuance of what the opinion says, but you might have more insight into just how the judicial branch “interprets the law.” Over time, with practice, you can get the hang of it. There is more to it than what is shown in that video. Remember, a man who doesn’t read has no advantage over a man who can’t.

Of course, simply jerking one’s knee is far easier.

May I commend to your attention the free course in the Constitution offered by Hillsdale College? I’ve not taken it, but I bet it is awfully good. http://lp.hillsdale.edu/intro-...n=intro_constitution

Lawyers will never agree with us simpletons on what it means to interpret something. Our understanding of the word "interpret" isn't sufficiently sophisticated.

This judge is doing a bit more than just trying to figure out the intent of the laws authors. He's using a more "sophisticated" definition of the word "interpret".

Exactly what is being interpreted? It doesn't appear to be a statute, but an already unconstitutional executive order.

So, the court orders a stay, to continue the effects of an already unlawful executive order, on the grounds that it may be unconstitutional to rescind benefits imparted by the unlawful executive order?

These courts and the lawyers sitting on the bench in them, have proven they couldn't care less about the intent of the authors of the laws they interpret.

I agree, after a judges interpretation has been reversed a few times, a lack of competency is obvious. It's time for these judges to go.

Overturned on appeal like the other anti-Trump efforts?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You might read the decision and the facts presented before the rant.

It is not a decision on the merits, merely an injunction pending the litigation.

I DID read it. "Alsup ordered that until a final judgment is reached, the program must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire."

People can take their legaleaze and shove it where the sun don't shine. This judge says "MUST BE ALLOWED TO RENEW". This is extending a program that congress never passed, this by any sane definition is legislating from the bench. This kind of legislating from the bench is UNACCEPTABLE, I don't care WTF kind a "legal" BS you want to ascribe to it. If Congress never said yes and the President says NO it's not for the Judges to overrule them both, PERIOD.

quote:

Originally posted by djpaintles:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
You might read the decision and the facts presented before the rant.

It is not a decision on the merits, merely an injunction pending the litigation.

I DID read it. "Alsup ordered that until a final judgment is reached, the program must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire."

People can take their legaleaze and shove it where the sun don't shine. This judge says "MUST BE ALLOWED TO RENEW". This is extending a program that congress never passed, this by any sane definition is legislating from the bench. This kind of legislating from the bench is UNACCEPTABLE, I don't care WTF kind a "legal" BS you want to ascribe to it. If Congress never said yes and the President says NO it's not for the Judges to overrule them both, PERIOD.

What you read is not the decision, it is a news report of the decision. The judge likely wrote an opinion summarizing the claims, the grounds, the findings and the law he relied on in issuing the injunction. THAT is what needs to be read.

I have a feeling it will be read at the 9th Circuit very soon, and at the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.

In looking around for the text of Judge Alsup’s order, I found a story that the Supreme Court had issued an emergency stay of Alsup’s order requiring the government to produce all the reports and records involved in the decision to cancel DACA, something like 1.6 million documents.

Sometimes you guys remind me of my first wife who was never happy unless she was miserable about something.

"Judge Alsup has made his ruling, now let him enforce it".

I can see the judge’s logic. By issuing an injunction, he is actually preserving the continuity of government and the rule of law.

Here’s a hypothetical. Say you wanted to built a house, so you went to the city and got your permit. Perhaps you successfully acquired a variance for something in the code, like a set back or something. You begin building, then the city administration changes, with the new city planner being opposed to your building. He tells you that your permit is now invalid, and that you must move the half-built structure to comply with the codes. Of course that is unreasonable, so you decide to litigate.

Would you want the city to demolish your structure right away, or do you think it would be prudent to wait until the court has decided on the merits of your case? If you agree with the former, then that means that all building activities are subject to fiat governance. There should be an orderly way that decisions are made before irreparable harm is done.

If (when) the DACA EO is shown unconstitutional in a court of law, then the executive can act. I think waiting until then is a preservation of the rule of law, not an affront to it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
I can see the judge’s logic. By issuing an injunction, he is actually preserving the continuity of government and the rule of law.

Here’s a hypothetical. Say you wanted to built a house, so you went to the city and got your permit. Perhaps you successfully acquired a variance for something in the code, like a set back or something. You begin building, then the city administration changes, with the new city planner being opposed to your building. He tells you that your permit is now invalid, and that you must move the half-built structure to comply with the codes. Of course that is unreasonable, so you decide to litigate.

Would you want the city to demolish your structure right away, or do you think it would be prudent to wait until the court has decided on the merits of your case? If you agree with the former, then that means that all building activities are subject to fiat governance. There should be an orderly way that decisions are made before irreparable harm is done.

If (when) the DACA EO is shown unconstitutional in a court of law, then the executive can act. I think waiting until then is a preservation of the rule of law, not an affront to it.

Bingo.