Second judge blocks Trump administration from ending DACA

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Feb 13, 2018.

Tags:
  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 65816

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    The courts do not like Trump and are doing congress' job for them. Here we have yet another court ruling to stop Trump's idiocy from taking place.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-injunction-barring-trump-administration-from

     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    How can a judge bar Trump from not taking action? That doesn't really make sense. DACA itself likely wasn't constitutional as an EO. Seems like another overreach where courts are trying to create law.
     
  3. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #3
    You can keep saying that DACA was unconstitutional, but that doesn't make it true.

    The question is did the Trump administration violate the Administrative Procedure Act? If so, the change is unconstitutional, especially if the decision was driven by "racial animus."

    Ironically, this was the same claim that Texas and 25 other states made when challenging DAPA.
     
  4. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    From my understanding of it Trump didn’t follow the law in how he removed it, and the courts have not ruled it unconstitutional yet at least.
     
  5. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #5
    The constitution gives the President the authority to regulate immigration. We seen the travel ban upheld by the Supreme Court. Just a matter of time before this is too.
     
  6. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #6
    The administration should not have argued that the program was unconstitutional because that lays the claim that they’re ending it on the basis of something that’s up to legal interpretation. Bad law practice, since now all the opposition has to do is prove that the administrations claim of unconstitutionality is tenuous. Had they decided to end it because simply put they can, I don’t think there would be a problem.
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Even if it were constitutional it was done through executive order so the next president can easily just nullify it like you said. Obama knew it was unconstitutional when he did it though or he wouldn't have rammed it through after losing a congressional vote.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 13, 2018 ---
    Obama tried to pass it in congress first and then wrote the law himself when it didn't work out. That's not how separation of powers is supposed to work.
     
  8. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #8
    Good luck proving that in court. Reasons why you do things matter in law. Ex: kicking someone out of your restaurant because of their clothes vs because they’re black. Arguing the program was unconstitutional and that’s why we’re removing offers up a nice legal challenge .
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    He doesn't have to even challenge it, it's not law, presidents can nullify executive orders, it was issued from the exact position he now obtains. You can't say Obama had the power to issue the order without admitting Trump has the power to retract regardless of the constitutionality of it.
     
  10. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #10
    Is he going to “preside” over anything, or just sign dumb folders and pose? Can’t he pass anything?
     
  11. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #11
    Tax cuts was first, neutered the unconstitutional garbage in Obamacare, and immigration is next. If he can get immigration that will be two huge victories within 2 years.
     
  12. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #12
    Giving the rich more, while giving the poor less, then his 33% is next. There is no wall. Won’t happen. When you can see a line from space, we’re back centuries, and you may as well bring back the guilotine. Is a tree-hugging, long-haired, pot-smoking, anti-war hippie a stereotype liberal? Trump isn’t a conservative. He’s a Trumpist. He ran as a stereotype of a conservative.

    Trump tax cuts will probably be rolled back before the end of his term, Obamacare provisions reinstated. If not, bad for Trump supporters. The same ones who will bash “welfare queens” on canned goods while affected by the same.
     
  13. ThisIsNotMe Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #13
    Huh, over the 10 years of the Trump Tax Cuts, I will be savings in excess of $50k in federal taxes.
    But yeah. Crumbs and all.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Source for the bold, please.

    BL.
     
  15. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #15
    Post what you make and save. Saying “I’ll save 50k” means the same as the moon is made of green cheese.

    The damn speaker of the house tweeted a worker will save a Costco membership fee. Don’t pretend they’re not bragging about tossing crumbs. I’ve watched conservatives go on TV and brag about throwing “crumbs and all”.

    It’s not that a saving, even a small one, isn't appreciated. It’s that this is an obvious move. Presidents don’t brag about the stock markets being up, then cut taxes. Unless they’re just partisan morons cutting corporate taxes because they’re bending over to their donors.
     
  16. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #16
    And then on year 11, when the huge deficit has piled up and the tax cuts expire*, what do you think you tax rates will be in the following decades? If the Democrats were smart, they'd intentionally loose control of Congress and the Presidency in 2024, when the proverbial excrement will hit the fan. Selfish short-sighted self-defeating strategies rarely last very long.

    *except for companies and the rich
     
  17. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #17
    The Constitution doesn't give the President the authority to regulate immigration. It, presumably and as interpreted, gives that authority to Congress. The executive branch, of course, is charged with implementing such regulation. But it must do so in accordance with not only the immigration laws themselves, but also, e.g., the Administrative Procedure Act.

    As for the travel ban... The Supreme Court didn't uphold it.

    It didn't consider Travel Ban I because the administration didn't ask it to. The administration likely understood that version had meaningfully no chance of being upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did, preliminarily, consider Travel Ban II. But it didn't uphold it; it didn't get that far in its consideration. The Court was set to decide whether to uphold that version, though we might conclude from what the Court said that it didn't expect it would need to. And, as expected, before it decided the matter the need to was removed. Part of that version expired by its own terms and the President issued Travel Ban III. In the meantime, the Supreme Court had allowed Travel Ban II to be implemented in some regards and upheld a block on it being implemented in other regards. A final decision on it very well may have been similarly split, finding that it was allowed in some regards but not in others.

    Now we're on Travel Ban III. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument regarding that version later this year, though when hasn't been announced yet. It will presumably decide whether or not to uphold it. It wouldn't surprise me if this version is upheld by the Supreme Court. On its third try, and having accomplished what it likely meant to accomplish with the first two (blocked, at least in some regards) versions, the administration may well have issued a version which would ultimately survive (or, at least, which it intended to and believed would ultimately survive) judicial review.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 14, 2018 ---
    Because, just as DACA itself needed to be implemented in accordance with certain laws, a change in policy which effectively undoes DACA needs to be implemented in accordance with certain laws.

    Also, the original DACA wasn't an executive order. It was a departmental policy memorandum. That's a distinction that only matters in certain contexts. But, to be clear, even though people continue to refer to it and its rescission as executive orders, they aren't.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 14, 2018 ---
    I don't think President Obama knew DACA (original) was unconstitutional when it was announced. He likely realized there was a possibility that parts of it would ultimately be determined (by courts) to be unconstitutional, but I suspect he also thought there was a fair possibility that even those parts wouldn't be found unconstitutional and that certain other parts were very unlikely to be found unconstitutional.

    If you look at the details of DACA, it seems to have been crafted to do just that which might plausibly be argued (ultimately, rightly or wrongly) to be allowable under existing immigration laws, consistent with existing (and accepted) regulations, and based on previous court decisions. They aggressively pushed the limit of what was allowable, but made sure not to clearly exceed it (as distinguished from possibly exceeding it). In other words, they colored right up to the lines, but tried to stay within them - at least, tried not to clearly go outside them. It may be worth noting that DACA (original) was never, in more than 5 years, successfully challenged even though a number of legal challenges were brought against it.

    As for President Obama doing, with DACA, what Congress declined to do. DACA, the departmental policy memorandum, wasn't the exact same as what Congress might have passed. President Obama and others would have liked to pass something more comprehensive (with regard to so-called childhood arrivals), but weren't able to. So he did, with DACA, something less than he would have liked to seen done.
     
  18. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #18
    The Supreme Court have ruled that the Constitution gives the president exclusively the final say on foreign policy and because they have ruled that immigration is one of the tools he can use to effectuate that policy.
     
  19. JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #19
    So... That's a NO on the sourcing again? o_O
     
  20. Mlrollin91 macrumors G5

    Mlrollin91

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Location:
    Ventura County
    #20
    The President (Executive Branch) Is merely the enforcement arm of the Government. They have zero power in implementing immigration laws, they just enforce them. The Constitution is very specific in the power of the President. They have the power to create treaties (thats the extent of their foreign policy power), appointments and Veto. Thats it. Executive Orders and Executive Agreements (also foreign power related) have been recognized by the court, but they are NOT actual powers granted to the President (or Executive Branch as a whole)

    I just finished up 5 months of Con Law. We beat this thing dead.
     
  21. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    #21
    Well, the power the president has with regard to implementing and enforcing the laws Congress passes depends on how much power the specific law gives to the executive. For example, much of the Obamacare legislation gives a lot of power to the Secretary of HHS. On the other hand, the underlying immigration law that formed the basis of the original DACA EO never said anything about admitting the children illegal immigrants so President Obama could not enact an EO that admitted them. To achieve the end he wanted, and in a complete sham and abuse of the process, he couched his EO as prosecutorial discretion. Many people see this as exceeding his authority since it effectively reverses the law enacted by Congress.
     
  22. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #22
    Forget the partisan posturing. Obama used his discretion to prioritize enforcement of criminals over people that 80% of the country don't think should be punished for something that they didn't do because Congress would prefer to hold them hostage over passing a law that has enough votes in both houses and the support of the president. Both now and then.

    He did the right thing.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Source on this, please.

    BL.
     
  24. ThisIsNotMe Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #25
    He will get that or infrastructure.

    And not getting an immigration deal would be just as much of a win for the GOP as getting one.
    The GOP offered up 3x what the Democrats wanted knowing full well they would turn down "an offer they couldn't refuse" in exchange for popular and sensible immigration reforms.

    Trump controls the narrative that the Democrats are the party of obstruction, and in this case it is quite apparent and Trump is doing an excellent job of painting the Democrats as a party that doesn't care about DACA illegals rather only wants to use them as pawns in the 2018 election cycle...because they have no policy platforms.
     

Share This Page

80 February 13, 2018