SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Judge Orders Restart of DACA Because he Didn't Like Administration's Reason for Rollback.
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Judge Orders Restart of DACA Because he Didn't Like Administration's Reason for Rollback. Login/Join 
Delusions of Adequacy
Picture of zoom6zoom
posted Hide Post
some of these judges need a good smackdown and a reminder that they're NOT legislators.




I have my own style of humor. I call it Snarkasm.
 
Posts: 17944 | Location: Virginia | Registered: June 02, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
the 'judge' needs to go fuck himself - he doesn't make policy, he is supposed to adhere to the law

the EO that created DACA was designed to sunset

Trump let it do what Obama wanted it to do, so perhaps the 'judge' should go have a chat with his boy-toy Braaaaawk and find out why he was so stupid



[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC


 
Posts: 53226 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
Well, this judge seems to want to completely relitigate the 5th Circuit's decision to enjoin DACA back in 2015. Barry couldn't help him with that then, and can't help him with that now.
 
Posts: 27293 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, this judge seems to want to completely relitigate the 5th Circuit's decision to enjoin DACA back in 2015. Barry couldn't help him with that then, and can't help him with that now.


That wasn’t DACA was it? It was DAPA, which was enjoined, the Supremes backed the injunction 4-4 and it is proceeding to trial according to this wikipedia listing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...Parents_of_Americans




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Told cops where to go for over 29 years…
Picture of 911Boss
posted Hide Post
So courts rule on the law (legislation) and there is no DACA legislation because it was done by executive fiat.

How then can a court rule on something that was never legislated?

Also, riddle me this... say Trump tells the judge to kindly suck a soft turd from the southern end of a northbound mule, what can the courts do?

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch, so who “enforces” the courts order if we get the Presidential version of nullification?

Law enforcement is not absolutely bound to comply with judges or court orders, hell my agency tacitly ignores them on many occasions. At times they are unenforceable, we don’t have the resources, or other “legitimate” reasons but at the end of the day what the judge to do don’t get done.






What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand???


 
Posts: 10952 | Location: Western WA state for just a few more years... | Registered: February 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Executive orders are simply outside the scope of the judiciaries authority. Suck orders should simply be ignored. Congress, if needed, should pass a law specifically limiting their jurisdiction.
 
Posts: 17147 | Location: Lexington, KY | Registered: October 15, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Striker in waiting
Picture of BurtonRW
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fredward:
Executive orders are simply outside the scope of the judiciaries authority. Suck orders should simply be ignored. Congress, if needed, should pass a law specifically limiting their jurisdiction.


The law is already there. It’s called Article III of the Constitution. The problem is, the very first Chief Justice, John Marshall, pulled off an incredibly sneaky but none too subtle power grab in 1803 when he wrote the decision in Marbury v. Madison, manipulating text and doing some pretty impressive rhetorical gymnastics to establish what we now call “judicial review”, which appears nowhere in Article III.

It’s all gone downhill since.

-Rob




I predict that there will be many suggestions and statements about the law made here, and some of them will be spectacularly wrong. - jhe888

A=A
 
Posts: 16273 | Location: Maryland, AA Co. | Registered: March 16, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Courts have jurisdiction over EOs. Look at the travel ban.

The President does not have power to do whatever pops into his head. Power is either found in the Constitution, or in an act of Congress authorizing the President or an executive branch officer (Cabinet) to act. Courts can certainly review EOs for source of authority.

This litigation is over whether or not it can proceed while the validity of the order is challenged.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bigdeal
posted Hide Post
quote:
Power is either found in the Constitution, or in an act of Congress authorizing the President or an executive branch officer (Cabinet) to act.
I think that's the way it used to work (as per the Constitution). Unfortunately, today's judiciary has appointed themselves an even greater power and role than the legislative and executive branches. The original concepts of law and order have all but flown out the window at this point as the judiciary has taken over where the legislative and executive branches have failed to act 'appropriately'. As I noted earlier in this thread, it must be good to be god.


-----------------------------
Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman. Kurt Schlichter
 
Posts: 33845 | Location: Orlando, FL | Registered: April 30, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Gracie Allen is my
personal savior!
posted Hide Post
God makes his own rules, if he feels like he needs any.

If a judge can try to hang a politician (or an EO, or a law, or a regulation, or anything else) out to dry, the judge has to claim that he (or she, or it, or whatever happens to be squatting on the bench) has to claim there are rules and that the rules have been violated.

If there are rules for politicians, then there are rules for judges. If there are rules for judges, then judges' decisions can be constrained or reversed. Thus, for example, we need to get Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court rather than simply assuming there's nothing that can be done.

There's no one who can be gotten into Heaven to oversee (or second guess) God. Heaven only knows where engineers go after they die.
quote:
Originally posted by JALLEN:
That wasn’t DACA was it? It was DAPA, which was enjoined, the Supremes backed the injunction 4-4 and it is proceeding to trial according to this wikipedia listing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...Parents_of_Americans

Maybe I misread him, but he seems to think that it all springs from the same source - to weaken the case against one is to weaken the case against the other. But you're right, I should've tied (or at least tried to tie) the two together in the post.
 
Posts: 27293 | Location: Deep in the heart of the brush country, and closing on that #&*%!?! roadrunner. Really. | Registered: February 05, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
Here again, it is better to light a candle rather than merely curse the darkness.

The Texas Attorney General filed a motion for a preliminary injunction which sets forth the claims and arguments. https://www.texasattorneygener...epress/Mt_for_PI.pdf

62 pages worth.




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Political Cynic
Picture of nhtagmember
posted Hide Post
OK, I am clearly not understanding this at all

let me get this straight

Obama wanted a piece of legislation and it was rejected by Congress

so he wrote an EO called DACA

the EO called DACA has a sunset provision

it was hoped that Congress would take up DACA and make it law before it sunset

Trump was elected

Trump decided that he didn't want to extend the EO so he let it expire

and now some judge is telling Trump he needs to reactivate an EO that he didn't write and has expired even though Congress doesn't want to deal with it

did I get this right?



[B] Against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC


 
Posts: 53226 | Location: Tucson Arizona | Registered: January 16, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I believe in the
principle of
Due Process
Picture of JALLEN
posted Hide Post
As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

The judge who made this latest ruling is a district court judge. The decision will undoubtedly be appealed, and if the appellate panel concludes the district court did everything correctly, didn't abuse discretion, followed appropriate precedence as required, the ruling will be upeld. Otherwise, reversal!

Sometimes lower court decisions decisions are so flagrantly bad they earn summary reversal by a unanimous Supreme Court. Thanks to Ed Whelan at National Review, we have this example:

quote:
When the Supreme Court summarily reverses a lower court’s ruling—that is, when it reverses without seeing any need for briefing on the merits and oral argument—that’s ordinarily* quite a black mark for the judge who authored the opinion below. Most federal appellate judges go through their entire careers without such a summary reversal.

And then there’s Ninth Circuit judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (appointed to that court by President Clinton).

The Supreme Court’s unanimous summary reversal two weeks ago in Kernan v. Cuero marks at least the fourth such reversal of a Wardlaw ruling, on top of those in McDaniel v. Brown (2009), Whitman v. Dep’t of Transportation (2006), and Gonzales v. Thomas (2006). It’s almost as if she’s deliberately competing against her colleague Stephen Reinhardt for the Lifetime Summary Reversal Award. (My thanks to the reader who called Wardlaw’s feat to my attention.)

Perhaps not coincidentally, one feature that three of the four Wardlaw rulings share is that Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain—one of the few very bright spots on a dismal court—was in dissent.

* I say ordinarily because there might be instances when the judge below is compelled by badly mistaken circuit precedent to rule as he did.

https://www.nationalreview.com...w-summary-reversals/




Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.

When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson

"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown
 
Posts: 48369 | Location: Texas hill country | Registered: July 04, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Judge Orders Restart of DACA Because he Didn't Like Administration's Reason for Rollback.

© SIGforum 2024