Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 10, 2018

A U.S. judge in San Francisco temporarily barred President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday from ending a program shielding young people brought to the United States illegally by their parents from deportation. The Trump administration announced in September it would rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a decision that was challenged in multiple federal courts by a variety of Democratic state attorneys general, organizations and individuals. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled in San Francisco on Tuesday the program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And here we all thought Trump was a Constitutional genius, right?

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-10 12:57 AM | Reply

CORKY

"And here we all thought Trump was a Constitutional genius, right?"

I know your post is tongue-in-cheek but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to say that we all REALLY think Trump is a constitutional nincompoop ~ among his many other shortcomings.

#2 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-10 01:21 AM | Reply

Oops!

There goes the big beautiful wall. Trump was holding the Dreamers hostage for his wall.

No hostages. No wall.

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-10 03:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

DONNERBOY

Concisely put.

#4 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-10 06:10 AM | Reply

So an Executive order can't be undone by an Executive order?

That is terrible jurisprudence.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-10 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What a surprise. San Francisco judge appointed by Clinton.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-10 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#6

What a surprise. Immigrant bashing Trumpite xenophobe.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-10 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#Somuchwinning!

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-10 12:21 PM | Reply

#3

The Dems in Congress are smart enough to know that they have to make a deal, while Alsup's decision will likely survive the Ninth Circuit (if the DOJ appeals the preliminary injunction) it has no chance in SCOTUS. There is no way it gets that far, since a deal will be made regardless of this decision.

#8

Alsup is a very smart guy (he taught himself how to program Java for the Oracle v. Google trial so he knew what they were talking about) and probably felt he had no choice given the preliminary relief sought. I haven't read the opinion yet but am pretty sure that he is right in issuing a preliminary injunction on an "irreparable harm" basis since the DACA repeal affected over 800,000 people here with legal status.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-10 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The wall has always been a fraud. Even if Trump gets funding it will only be a partial fence and wall. It won't stop the flow of illegal entrants to the US.
Its only purpose was to fire up the racists and it can do that without being built, they will fall for anything.

#10 | Posted by bored at 2018-01-10 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The Dems in Congress are smart enough to know that they have to make a deal..."

And I hope they are smarter than you think they are.

There should be no deal. No "wall". Unless he makes Mexico pay for it as he said he would. Period. Time to stop playing patty cake with the Orange Manchild.

Trump thought he was holding the Dreamers hostage (800,000 humans) so he could soothe his base. Terrorizing a minority just to fire up his racist base... that sounds like terrorism to me.

The hostages have been released.

No need to negotiate with terrorists.

#11 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-10 04:52 PM | Reply

That is terrible jurisprudence.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ

I suggest you call 1-800-WAA-AAA!

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-10 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is terrible jurisprudence.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ

I suggest you call 1-800-WAA-AAA!

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-10 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Seconded

#13 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-10 04:56 PM | Reply

BORED

"The wall has always been a fraud."

Trump admitted that during his conversation with the President of Mexico (transcript available on line) when he said the wall was just vote baiting and red meat to keep his base riled up. He said he expected they'd forgive him later on. So he doesn't want the wall. He'd rather impose tariffs (Presidents can't impose tariffs. That's up to the House of Representatives) to balance the trade deficit.

Google the whole conversation and you'll see how big a fraud Trump really is.

#14 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-01-10 05:02 PM | Reply

So an Executive order can't be undone by an Executive order?
That is terrible jurisprudence.

#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why post when you haven't a clue whats going on?

That's definitely NOT what the Court said. DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Court said while the litigation is going on, the policy can't be simply undone with another Executive Order. Not that it can't ever.

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-10 05:59 PM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Why post when you haven't a clue whats going on?>/i>

Being the self appointed Heyoka of the DR it is what he does.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-10 06:22 PM | Reply

Judge Orders Trump to Restart Dreamer Protections

And to "make me a sandwich!"

#17 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-01-10 08:05 PM | Reply

They are going to have some problems making this stick when it is realize the original legislation was not moved through the Congress.

It is not an immutable law like that of Congressional law. It is an arbitrary law which can be discontinued by the next arbiter.

#18 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 05:22 AM | Reply

Judge orders US to resume illegal practice. Now, that is some legal system we have here. We need to get back to a justice system. Damn lawyers are screwing everything up.

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-11 11:59 AM | Reply

"We need to get back to a justice system. Damn lawyers are screwing everything up." - #19 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-11 11:59 AM

Self-retorting retort.

Or, "We need to get back to a medical system. Damn doctors are screwing everything up."

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-11 12:01 PM | Reply

Let them stay, but oust their illegal parents.

#21 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-01-11 01:57 PM | Reply

#20 That is an incorrect correlation.

Lawyers would be like insurance companies related to medical discussions. Judges would be doctors.

So your quote would become "We need to get back to the medical system. Damn insurance companies are screwing everything up."

Obligatory correction.

#22 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 02:03 PM | Reply

"Judge orders US to resume illegal practice."

Not true.

How did you come to the conclusion that it was "illegal"? Fox News?

It has been ruled legal in several court challenges already.

More than 100 Law Professors disagree with you.

Here is some of their letter to Trump:

August 14, 2017

Dear President Trump:

As immigration law teachers and scholars, we write to express our position that the executive branch has legal authority to implement Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA 2012). This letter provides legal analysis about DACA 2012.

In our view, there is no question that DACA 2012 is a lawful exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Our conclusions are based on years of experience in the field and a close study of the U.S. Constitution,
administrative law, immigration statutes, federal regulations and case law. As the administration determines the future
of DACA 2012, understanding its legal foundation and history is critical.

The legal authority for DACA 2012 originates from the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section Three
(the Take Care Clause) states in part that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Inherent in the function of the "Take Care Clause" is the ability of the President to target some immigration cases for removal and
to use prosecutorial discretion favorably in others. As described by the U.S. Supreme Court:

[W]e recognize that an agency's refusal to institute proceedings shares to some
extent the characteristics of the decision of a prosecutor in the Executive Branch not to
indict -- a decision which has long been regarded as the special province of the Executive Branch,
inasmuch as it is the Executive who is charged by the Constitution to "take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed."

The link to the rest of the letter:

pennstatelaw.psu.edu

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-01-11 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or, "We need to get back to a medical system. Damn doctors are screwing everything up."

#20 | Posted by Hans

I doubt anyone has told you that you are a genus.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-12 01:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I doubt anyone has told you that you are a genus." - #24 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-12 01:04 PM

Actually, like you, homo sapiens are the only surviving species of the genus homo.

So no one really needs to tell me that.

Meanwhile, you must have forgotten this post I made to you on the Palladino Threatens to Take-out Reporter thread on September 30, 2010:

■ The brighest guy on the Retort and you can't recognize his written fingerprint?

Posted by MrCairo at 2007-01-05 11:42 PM

■ HANS is one of my favorite posters whos posts are backed up by facts

Posted by AllAmerican at 2007-03-22 03:09 PM

■ Hans had LA's number, complete with quotes and cites and sources. It actually was a thing of beauty. Making even more deliciously absurd, LA declared victory and left the thread.

Posted by moder8 at 2007-03-22 08:52 PM

■ Hans you are just cracking me up! I love it when you bulldog these guys, leaving them with no alternative but to run and hide, or declare victory without winning a damn thing.

Carry on. We can all call BS on these guys when we see it - but you always have the proof.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-03-23 01:57 PM

■ I'm not Hans. But one can only aspire.

Posted by FVZ at 2007-04-11 07:06 PM

■ Hans gets all the chicks.

Posted by I_N_Cognito at 2007-03-25 12:13 AM

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-12 01:10 PM | Reply

Again, in a normal world, it would be entirely rational for the attorney general to wind down DACA, which was the model for DAPA, based on a ruling against DAPA by a federal court of appeals, combined with signals that the Supreme Court would agree. (I would be willing to bet that Justice Gorsuch would cast the fifth vote to invalidate the policy.) Not so for Judge Alsup, who insists that "the DAPA litigation was not a death knell for DACA." For example, he writes, "there is a difference between 4.3 million and 689,000." That is, because fewer people received DACA than DAPA, the former policy is on a stronger legal footing. Yes, the two numbers are different. But so what? Breaking the law with nearly 700,000 aliens is still illegal.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com

This is judicial activism at its worst. There's more:

...And it is not for federal judges to instruct the president how to exercise his discretion. In any event, these contrived quibbles are irrelevant. President Trump does not need to persuade every single judge about DACA's illegality before halting it. Judge Alsup, who continues a disturbing recent trend, failed to afford the deference due to a coordinate branch of government in making legal determinations. Trump has the electoral mandate to reverse the decisions of his predecessor and the constitutional obligation to assess the constitutionality of his actions. The judgment here, premised on a decision of a federal court of appeals, provides more than enough basis to justify the recision of DACA. Moreover, the president's determination that an exercise of his own power was unconstitutional warrants the court's solicitude. That is a decision for the president to make in consultation with his advisers, and one that should not be disturbed lightly by a federal court. Judge Alsup completely ignored the constitutional issue, focusing exclusively on the statutory question. Indeed, I am unable to think of any decision where a court has ordered a president to exercise discretionary authority he has deemed unconstitutional.

And before anyone tries to slaughter the source, here is the author's credentials:

Josh Blackman

Associate Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law

Areas of Expertise
Constitutional Law
Intersection of Law and Technology
United States Supreme Court


www.stcl.edu

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-12 03:08 PM | Reply

"This is judicial activism at its worst."

Worse than having the Supreme Court pick the President along party lines? :)

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-12 03:15 PM | Reply

Judicial activism: any court decision Jeffylube doesn't like.

#28 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-12 03:21 PM | Reply

I doubt anyone has told you that you are a genus.

#24 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-01-12 01:04 PM | FLAG:

Are you an escaped lab experiment designed to test the theoretical upper limits of human stupidity?

#29 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-12 03:23 PM | Reply

"Not so for Judge Alsup, who insists that "the DAPA litigation was not a death knell for DACA."

Hes merely stating what other courts have found. It's not his determination.

If he were to decide, unlike the other courts, that the DAPA decision nullified DACA, well, that would be judicial activism.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-12 03:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort