Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 13, 2018

A second federal judge Tuesday has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that DACA participants and states are likely to succeed in their challenge that the way President Donald Trump terminated the Obama-era program was arbitrary and capricious.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Tuesday's ruling, combined with a ruling from a California judge last month, means the program could end up going beyond the March 5 date. The ruling means DACA recipients can renew their status, but the administration will not have to hold the program open to those who never applied.

"Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so.

Comments

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

"In fiery oral arguments last month, Garaufis gave a blistering critique of what he called the President's "recurring, redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary."

"It's not just an ad hoc comment that was overheard on an open mic," the judge said. "It's not just that somebody at INS said something derogatory about Mexicans. This came from the top."

Garaufis was responding to a question regarding Trump's comments in a closed-door meeting with senators in which the President asked why people from Haiti and more Africans were wanted in the US and added that the US should get more people from countries like Norway."

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 05:56 PM | Reply

Clintonite. Figures.

Prior to his appointment to the Clinton Administration in June, 1995, Garaufis served for nine years as counsel to Queens Borough President Claire Shulman in New York City.

Garaufis was nominated by President Clinton on February 28, 2000, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-13 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

Xenophobic Trump Service Technician. Figures. All those brown people on his lawn... that he stole from them.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

RE #2

Hurrah for the Deep (blue) State!

The Resistant is Strong!

And, of course, there is that pesky little question of legality here.

The judge said that the decision to end the program was based in part on the "plainly incorrect factual premise" that the program was illegal.

And that is awesome ruling because we can fight almost everyone of Trump's idiot and hateful decisions based on that kind of finding.

Pretty much everything Humpy Trumpy does is based on a "plainly incorrect factual premise".

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-13 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2,3 Nulli, did you steal your lawn from brown people? You are a very, very bad hippy.

#5 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 06:19 PM | Reply

#5

Not a history major.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#5 So... Nulli invaded Latin America and stole their lawn? Please be more specific, history major. We need details about Nulli's lawn left from brown people. Please support your accusation.

#7 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 06:30 PM | Reply

#7

Playing dumb IS prolly your best strategery. It's always werked before.

www.telesurtv.net

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clintonite. Figures, cares about rule of law and not a racist. How quaint.

#9 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-13 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#8 Playing dumb IS prolly your best strategy. Where in that article did Nulli steal a lawn from brown people? Where? Also, that territory was stolen from Native Americans in the first place - by brown people. Thru conquest. By an Emperor. Who savagely enslaved and oppressed them. But yeah, I understand that you hate the fact that the people fighting for actual freedom like in the Texas War of Independence where in fact white and believed in democracy, something you seem to abhor. And I perfectly understand why you would support the fascist oppressive Mexican dictatorship that overthrew it's democracy ruling over everybody at gun-point. Because that's who you are.

#10 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 06:47 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

www.telesurtv.net

What a load of crap. Mexico lost a war. A treaty resulted.

#11 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-13 06:53 PM | Reply

#10

You know, for all that helium, you still have no sense of humor at all.

I blame it on your MAGA cap being two sizes too small.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:56 PM | Reply

#11

That's what Putin said about Georgia.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 06:57 PM | Reply

"the people fighting for actual freedom like in the Texas War of Independence"

Fighting to keep their slaves. Fighting against the slave liberator Santa Anna.

That Texas War of Independence?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 06:59 PM | Reply

#14 Did you actually type something that stupid, Snoofy? The Texas War of Independence was fought over the "Seven Laws". When the Mexican democracy fell in a fascist coup and was taken over by a dictator, five Mexican states rebelled at the same time, and Texas was only one of the. Texans where angry that their elected government was being replaced by a governor from Mexico City appointed by the dictator. Also, governor Sam Houston was opposed to slavery. And Texas had about 10,000 slaves at the time. Not something you fight a war over. And Texas had a special legal arrangement with Mexico allowing it to keep it's slaves. But hey, you can read about that in period literature. Or any encyclopedia. Or any history book not written by a communist.

I swear to God you are completely brainwashed.

#15 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 07:27 PM | Reply

The slave liberator Santa Anna. Wow. That's just awesome. Did you know Mexico imported more slaves per capita than the US, but their average lifespan was only 2 years? And that when Mexico ended slavery, it specifically said that it would use Native Americans instead for forced labor because slaves where just to expensive? That was their whole justification. And then they rounded up all of their black people and put them in one city, where 90% of them died from disease and starvation. But hey, Mexico ended racial segregation in its public schools in 1996, so they aren't racist like we are.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 07:32 PM | Reply

"Texans where angry that their elected government was being replaced by a governor from Mexico City appointed by the dictator."

Haha!

American settlers in Mexico GOOD
Mexican settlers in America BAD

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 07:35 PM | Reply

"And Texas had about 10,000 slaves at the time. Not something you fight a war over."

Hence the battle cry ten years later:
"What Alamo?"

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 07:38 PM | Reply

"Also, governor Sam Houston was opposed to slavery."

How opposed? Was slavery legal or illegal in the Republic of Texas, later State of Texas?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 07:42 PM | Reply

Okay, so you can't say anything at all to support your argument that the Texas War of Independence was fought over the Seven Laws and not slavery at all, and so you deflected to even more insane crap. Fine. Par for the course. That's why you are my emotional support pig, snoofy - I just don't know what I would do without you.

#20 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 07:47 PM | Reply

"Okay, so you can't say anything at all to support your argument that the Texas War of Independence was fought over the Seven Laws and not slavery at all"

Your answer to #19 says it.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 08:02 PM | Reply

I love you snoofy. Show me a single shred of evidence that the Texas War of Independence was fought over slavery, and Santa Anna was a liberator and not a weird aristocratic tyrant working for a dictator that overthrew a democratic government.

God you make me feel special. I need you. Let's get married.

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 08:44 PM | Reply

"Show me a single shred of evidence that the Texas War of Independence was fought over slavery"

I present two facts. Mexico abolished slavery, Texas kept it.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 08:59 PM | Reply

#23 No, Mexico allowed Texas to keep its slaves in a legal arrangement. Read a God-damned history book. But hey, I guess you are sort of "history-fluid". That's a thing now, right?

#24 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-02-13 09:23 PM | Reply

Hbrat on Texas independence.... great job Deflecting the thread from DACA.

Trump appreciates your vote.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-13 09:31 PM | Reply

"Mexico allowed Texas to keep its slaves in a legal arrangement."

This just gets better!
Mexico allowed the Republic of Texas to keep slaves?
Why would the Republic of Texas, a sovereign state, need Mexico's permission for that?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-13 09:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not sure how successful they will be since the Supreme Court of the United States of America has already weighed in on this.

Judge Andrew Hanen blocked the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans after Texas and other states filed suit. Hanen issued a temporary ban on implementing the executive amnesty program in February 2015. An appellate court upheld Hanen's order and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court ruling stand.

The Dems need to stop using these people to further their political agenda.

#27 | Posted by sawdust at 2018-02-14 08:25 AM | Reply

Judge Andrew Hanen blocked the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans after Texas and other states filed suit. Hanen issued a temporary ban on implementing the executive amnesty program in February 2015. An appellate court upheld Hanen's order and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court ruling stand.
The Dems need to stop using these people to further their political agenda.
#27 | POSTED BY SAWDUST AT 2018-02-14 08:25 AM | REPLY

Translation: The republicans used these people to further their political agenda. We are upset when the Dems point out that the law is on their side

#28 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Translation: The republicans used these people to further their political agenda. We are upset when the Dems point out that the law is on their side

Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 09:10 AM | Reply

Typical useless Republicans. As useless as my orchids.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 10:55 AM | Reply

DACA is an unconstitutional Executive Order.

This is judicial activism at its worst.

EO's are the whim of POTUS.

What this judge is effectively saying is that the prior president has primacy over the sitting president.

That is patently absurd.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just exactly is a non law that o'bummer made up?

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 11:26 AM | Reply

Just exactly is a non law that o'bummer made up?

#31 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-02-14 11:26 AM | REPLY |

DACA is not a law and is not illegal. No court has found it unconstitutional.

#32 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 11:51 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

DACA is an unconstitutional Executive Order.
This is judicial activism at its worst.
EO's are the whim of POTUS.
What this judge is effectively saying is that the prior president has primacy over the sitting president.
That is patently absurd.

#30 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 11:06 AM | REPLY |

No court has opined that DACA is unconstitutional. Only armchair keyboard warriors

#33 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-02-14 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- DACA is an unconstitutional Executive Order.

Yeah, he keeps saying that as if it were true.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2018-02-14 12:06 PM | Reply

What this judge is effectively saying is that the prior president has primacy over the sitting president.

That is patently absurd.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ

Except that is NOT what the judge said.

He said the LAW has primacy over the sitting president.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

DACA is NOT a law.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:12 PM | Reply

- DACA is an unconstitutional Executive Order.

Yeah, he keeps saying that as if it were true.

#34 | Posted by Corky

So how come Trump's executive order doing away with it is unconstitutional? Is o'bummers executive order more powerful because it was first?

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 01:14 PM | Reply

He said the LAW has primacy over the sitting president.

#35 | Posted by donnerboy

What law donnie?

#38 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 01:15 PM | Reply

DACA is NOT a law.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ

DACA is not illegal either.

So there is no reason to do to what Trump is doing.

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:16 PM | Reply

DACA is not illegal either.
So there is no reason to do to what Trump is doing.
#39 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

That is your opinion. Trump was elected POTUS. He has the power to undo any EO's, Executive memoranda and any guidance letters enacted by his predecessor. Elections have consequences.

DACA is wholly an executive construct. It has no accompanying law to back it. It was implemented with the stroke of a presidential pen and can be unimplemented in the same manner. This judge is WAY out of bounds.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:20 PM | Reply

"Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so."
The judge said that the decision to end the program was based in part on the "plainly incorrect factual premise" that the program was illegal.
"Today's ruling shows that courts across the country agree that Trump's termination of DACA was not just immoral, but unlawful as well," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 01:23 PM | Reply

So how come Trump's executive order doing away with it is unconstitutional? Is o'bummers executive order more powerful because it was first?

#37 | Posted by Sniper

Wow... Obama's EO IS more powerful obviously. Good observation!

Do you know what "arbitrary" and "capricious" mean?

"Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so."

"That is your opinion."

that is the judge's opinion.

I just happen to agree with it.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:23 PM | Reply

This judge is WAY out of bounds.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ

Perhaps it is Trump that is way out of "bounds"

Just because Trump is President does not mean he gets to do anything he wants.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 01:25 PM | Reply

That is your opinion. Trump was elected POTUS. He has the power to undo any EO's, Executive memoranda and any guidance letters enacted by his predecessor. Elections have consequences.

Not if there is no legit reason to undo the prior admin executive order. That's unlawful

DACA is wholly an executive construct. It has no accompanying law to back it. It was implemented with the stroke of a presidential pen and can be unimplemented in the same manner. This judge is WAY out of bounds.

No he's not

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:20 PM | Reply

#44 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 01:27 PM | Reply

"DACA is wholly an executive construct. It has no accompanying law to back it."

It's backed by a set of laws we call the Constitution, which grants the Executive broad powers regarding immigration policy and enforcement.

Seriously, if you're the Constitutional stickler for detail you purport to be, you ought to see why the courts have let DACA stand twice now.

But you're a Constitutional stickler for the right, not for the Constitution.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 01:27 PM | Reply

So, I guess Trump's EO's can't be undone by his successor because, well, this judge set a precedent.

DACA is NOT tied to any law. It can be undone in the same manner in which it was enacted.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:56 PM | Reply

DACA is NOT a law. This is absurd.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:57 PM | Reply

DACA is NOT tied to any law. It can be undone in the same manner in which it was enacted.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 01:56 PM | Reply

Not if there is no legit reason to undo it it can not and that's the point.

#48 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 02:10 PM | Reply

DACA can be ended, but not in an arbitrary and capricious way.

The Dotards team are incompetent, that is why they fumbled this EO.

"Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that DACA participants and states are likely to succeed in their challenge that the way President Donald Trump terminated the Obama-era program was arbitrary and capricious."

#49 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-14 02:12 PM | Reply

The legit reason is having won the election and having campaigned on ending it.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:19 PM | Reply

Judges don't have the enumerated power to dictate policy to the Executive. DACA is an Executive policy, it's not a law.

Obama wasn't bound by any of Bush's EO's, nor should he have been.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:20 PM | Reply

"The legit reason is having won the election and having campaigned on ending it.
#50 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

That's... not a legal argument.
And thus not a "legit reason."

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 02:24 PM | Reply

"Judges don't have the enumerated power to dictate policy to the Executive"

They have the power to say a policy is probably illegal, which is all that happened here.

I'm beginning to think you might not be all that smart.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Undoing a policy is not "illegal".

Go pick up a Schoolhouse Rock DVD.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:37 PM | Reply

If Schoolhouse Rock is your touchstone for legal analysis, I'm convinced you're just not too smart a cookie.

Bye.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 02:38 PM | Reply

Schoolhouse rock is a cut above the level of your understanding of Civics101 being displayed on this thread.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:42 PM | Reply

The legit reason is having won the election and having campaigned on ending it.

#50 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 02:19 PM | REPLY

Classic Jeffj: a populist (except when it comes to the electoral college) and a legalist (except when actual judges rule in a way he doesn't like).

#57 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Do you have a substantive rejoinder, Dirk?

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 03:15 PM | Reply

--a populist (except when it comes to the electoral college

Three cheers for the populist, federalist electoral college, the only institution blocking rule by progressive plutocrats in California, New York, and Martha's Vineyard.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-02-14 03:24 PM | Reply

Undoing a policy is not "illegal".

Go pick up a Schoolhouse Rock DVD.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ

It might be if you are undoing a policy that protects people from harm and you are doing it for unconstitutional reasons.

Don't you love checks and balances when they work for YOUR party?

I know I do.

MAGA!

#60 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-14 03:25 PM | Reply

Martha's Vineyard.

#59 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018

I'm glad people are waking up to the danger of Martha, and her damnable Vineyard.

#61 | Posted by Zed at 2018-02-14 03:31 PM | Reply

Just because Trump is President does not mean he gets to do anything he wants.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy

Why not? o'bummer did. Now donnie, tell me what law the judge had in mind.

#62 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 03:57 PM | Reply

It's backed by a set of laws we call the Constitution, which grants the Executive broad powers regarding immigration policy and enforcement.

Seriously, if you're the Constitutional stickler for detail you purport to be, you ought to see why the courts have let DACA stand twice now.

But you're a Constitutional stickler for the right, not for the Constitution.

#45 | Posted by snoofy

Feel free to explain that to us sno. Seems to me only dem presidents have power and not the republican.

#63 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 03:59 PM | Reply

"Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that DACA participants and states are likely to succeed in their challenge that the way President Donald Trump terminated the Obama-era program was arbitrary and capricious."

#49 | Posted by bored

Damn, that one is right out of the constitution. I'm not sure what part but I am sure one of you libs will point that out to me.

#64 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 04:01 PM | Reply

Schoolhouse rock is a cut above the level of your understanding of Civics101 being displayed on this thread.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ

Thank you mister obvious. You hit that one right on the head.

#65 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 04:03 PM | Reply

Classic Jeffj: a populist (except when it comes to the electoral college) and a legalist (except when actual judges rule in a way he doesn't like).

#57 | Posted by DirkStruan

I am sure you can't explain that one either.

#66 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-02-14 04:04 PM | Reply

#59 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Are you bad at math or do you no know what populist means?

#67 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-02-14 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The legit reason is having won the election and having campaigned on ending it.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nope do try again.

#68 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 04:39 PM | Reply

Do you have a substantive rejoinder, Dirk?

#58 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 03:15 PM | FLAG:

Do you have a substantive point to which I should respond? Or do you believe that the president can make whatever capricious policy changes he wishes with no justification needed?

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 05:25 PM | Reply

Jeff... this is what happens when you elect a bunch of compulsive liars to lead your party. They just can't stop. And while their base voters are dumb enough to believe their lies, the legal system doesn't tolerate them.

If the Trump admin had been honest about their reasons for getting rid of DACA (because they want to deport all the brown people in this country) then they wouldn't have this problem. But, they want to claim that they don't "actually" want to deport people who were brought to this country as children, to keep gullible people like you happy, while they silently make it happen.

Trump can EASILY reverse Obama's EOs if he just tells the truth. But, since he's a Republican, it looks like Obama's EOs will be here for a LONG TIME.

#70 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-02-14 05:28 PM | Reply

#69

An EO isn't a law. They can be undone in the same manner they were enacted.

Are you really this ignorant of this country's civic structure?

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 05:52 PM | Reply

"An EO isn't a law. They can be undone in the same manner they were enacted."

For no reason at all, huh? How about that.

#72 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 05:58 PM | Reply

Yes. For no reason at all. That's why it's far better to advance an agenda via legislation.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:02 PM | Reply

Yes. For no reason at all. That's why it's far better to advance an agenda via legislation.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:02 PM | Reply

No actually Trump has to have a legit reason more than your lame he won an election.

#74 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 06:08 PM | Reply

Not to undo an EO he doesn't.

This president is not bound to the policies of the previous president.

Imagine a court striking down an Obama EO that undid a Bush EO.

That would be absurd and I'm pretty sure you know it.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | Reply

DACA isn't even a regulation that followed the process for the enactment. It was wholly an executive action that on 22 prior occasions Obama publicly stated he didn't have the power to enact.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:14 PM | Reply

Not to undo an EO he doesn't.

This president is not bound to the policies of the previous president.

Imagine a court striking down an Obama EO that undid a Bush EO.

That would be absurd and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:11 PM | Reply

Your ignorance is duly noted.

www.nytimes.com

The immigration lawyers who brought the case nonetheless hailed his ruling as a victory.

"During a week when the Senate is having a battle over immigration, we now have two judges saying that what happened on Sept. 5 was not justified," said Marisol Orihuela, a lawyer from the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. "This sends a clear message to lawmakers to act and pass something."

After the decision, Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement that the judge had affirmed the states' position. "Federal courts from coast to coast have now reviewed the record and reached the same conclusion," Mr. Schneiderman said. "President Trump's decision to rescind DACA was illegal."

#77 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 06:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Those two judges are wrong. This is judicial activism.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 06:24 PM | Reply

Those two judges are wrong. This is judicial activism.

#78 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 06:24 PM | FLAG:

Because you say so? Upthread you don't even acknowledge that the judiciary has oversite over EOs (which it manifestly does):

#79 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 06:26 PM | Reply

"Imagine a court striking down an Obama EO that undid a Bush EO."

Did Obama say the Bush EO protects people we don't want coming here from -------- countries?

Try and imagine how that might be relevant.

I'm confident you can find relevance in Trump's repeated remarks about DACA beneficiaries.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 06:42 PM | Reply

Because you say so? Upthread you don't even acknowledge that the judiciary has oversite over EOs (which it manifestly does):

#79 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Of course it does. The judiciary had enacted a stay on DAPA and basically ruled it unconstitutional.

This is different. An EO that undoes an EO - nope. No jurisdiction whatsoever.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 07:20 PM | Reply

This is different. An EO that undoes an EO - nope. No jurisdiction whatsoever.

#81 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 07:20 PM | FLAG:

What exactly is the difference?

#82 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 08:41 PM | Reply

The judiciary had enacted a stay on DAPA and basically ruled it unconstitutional.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-14 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag

No they didn't rule it unconstituti0nal Mr Dishonest. There was NEVER a set in stone ruling on it's constitutionality. Please do try again.

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-14 10:32 PM | Reply

Selective memory and creative misreading are the key to someone like Jeff's entire worldview. Without them, he would have to accept his prejudice as prejudice rather than the objective order of the world...

#84 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-14 11:22 PM | Reply

"Selective memory and creative misreading are the key to someone like Jeff's entire worldview. "

Don't forget the switching frame of reference mid-stream, and applying the input heuristic of one paradigm to arrive at the logical output for the other.
Like, favoring the repeal of Obamacare because of objecting to the way Obamacare was enacted into law.
Like, denying transgender bathroom access because of what a man in a dress might do in bathroom.

That's a "move" that's so complex he probably doesn't even realize he's doing it, and in fact we all do it to some degree, because that's how we naturally think.

But it's --------.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-14 11:28 PM | Reply

I am just enjoying watching jeffy and lil snippy twist themselves into pretzels to try and justify Trump's hateful agenda. The whole DACA situation is an artificial crisis created by Trump to use the Dreamers as hostages for his wall.

While I realize this is only temporary delay I love seeing the rug being pulled out from under Trump and his Deplorable base any way and any time we can.

Yay for checks and balances!

Resist the hate!

#86 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 10:26 AM | Reply

www.msnbc.com

As a substantive matter, Americans won't see a shift in policy – DAPA was already on hold by court order – but millions of immigrants were poised to benefit from President Obama's policy, and as a result of the Supreme Court's tie, that will not happen, at least not this year.

Note, the high court didn't strike down the administration's policy, and if you see anyone saying the Supreme Court concluded that DAPA is unconstitutional, they're wrong. What the White House hoped to do was begin enforcing its own policy, and because of today's 4-4 decision, that's on indefinite hold.

#87 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 10:36 AM | Reply

www.reuters.com

The group argues that the new Trump policy violates the Constitution's Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, pulling protection out from under U.S. residents who relied on the government's assurances. According to the letter NILC and its co-counsel sent to U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, the group intends to assert the argument that the rescission of DACA "is unconstitutionally motivated by anti-Mexican and anti-Latino animus."

But the strongest immediate legal case to block the new Trump policy, according to two legal experts, is probably going to be the same wonky argument that led to a nationwide injunction against Obama's DAPA program: The Trump administration, according to this argument, violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rescinding the Obama policy without engaging in a formal notice-and-comment process.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 10:54 AM | Reply

This is different. An EO that undoes an EO - nope. No jurisdiction whatsoever.
#81 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-14 07:20 PM | FLAG:
What exactly is the difference?

#82 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

A sitting president is not bound by the policies of his predecessor.

#89 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 11:52 AM | Reply

DACA expires March 5.

Trump is not required to renew it.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 11:53 AM | Reply

A sitting president is not bound by the policies of his predecessor.

#89 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-15 11:52 AM | FLAG:

Moving the goal posts. We aren't talking about policies, we are talking about EOs. So what, exactly, is the difference?

#91 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-15 12:00 PM | Reply

DACA expires March 5.

Trump is not required to renew it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 11:53 AM | Reply

14TH AMENDMENT MIGHT HAVE A SAY IN THAT. Sorry caps.

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 12:03 PM | Reply

I don't see how the 14th is relevant.

DACA is not a law.

No worries on the caps.

We aren't talking about policies, we are talking about EOs. So what, exactly, is the difference?

#91 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

EO's are not laws. They are policy initiatives for POTUS. They can be undone as easily as they were done in the first-place.

But the strongest immediate legal case to block the new Trump policy, according to two legal experts, is probably going to be the same wonky argument that led to a nationwide injunction against Obama's DAPA program: The Trump administration, according to this argument, violated the Administrative Procedure Act by rescinding the Obama policy without engaging in a formal notice-and-comment process.

#88 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Never mind the fact that DACA was written without going through the Administrative Procedure Act.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 12:13 PM | Reply

It doesn't have to be a law for DACA people to have due process rights and equal protection rights.

#94 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-15 12:17 PM | Reply

"I don't see how the 14th is relevant.
DACA is not a law."

Nor does it have to be for the 14th to apply, oh mighty armchair constitutional scholar. As I've already had to remind you twice, there is such a thing as judicial oversight of EOs for precisely that reason...

#95 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-15 12:36 PM | Reply

Not renewing DACA doesn't take away those rights.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 12:37 PM | Reply

You know what is puzzling absent from discussions like this? The question of whether repealing DACA is actually the right thing to do. Rightists would rather dive into legalism than be exposed as wanting these people gone.

#97 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-15 12:38 PM | Reply

Not renewing DACA doesn't take away those rights.

#96 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-15 12:37 PM | FLAG:

Doing it arbitrarily does.

#98 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-15 12:39 PM | Reply

"A sitting president is not bound by the policies of his predecessor."

He is bound by the Constitution.

You seem not to recognize the fact that Constitutional protections apply to non-citizens in the country. Among other cognitive failures.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-15 12:46 PM | Reply

You seem not to recognize the fact that Constitutional protections apply to non-citizens in the country.

What makes you think that?

You know what is puzzling absent from discussions like this? The question of whether repealing DACA is actually the right thing to do. Rightists would rather dive into legalism than be exposed as wanting these people gone.

#97 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

DACA is legislating via the Executive. For that reason it absolutely is the right thing to repeal it, or opt not to renew it.

Were it not for all of the promises not kept regarding border enforcement and curbing illegal immigration that last time amnesty was passed, I'd be all for a legislative version of DACA.

#100 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 01:19 PM | Reply

"DACA is legislating via the Executive. For that reason..."

Again with the cognition failure.

What EO isn't "legislating via the Executive." Go ahead and name three.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-15 01:29 PM | Reply

EO's are not legislation. You know this.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-15 02:17 PM | Reply

"EO's are not legislation unless signed by a Republican President. You know this."

FTFY

#103 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-15 04:26 PM | Reply

"DACA is legislating via the Executive"
--JeffJ

"EO's are not legislation."
--Also JeffJ

JeffJ should ask JeffJ if DACA is an EO.
I'd be very interested to hear his answer!

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-15 05:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

DACA is legislating via the Executive. For that reason it absolutely is the right thing to repeal it, or opt not to renew it.

Why do you think that? DACA is not illegal. Did the Dreamers suddenly become not a huge problem?

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-15 05:12 PM | Reply

Were it not for all of the promises not kept regarding border enforcement and curbing illegal immigration that last time amnesty was passed, I'd be all for a legislative version of DACA.

#100 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-15 01:19 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

But because of those things you are not all for it?

Translation: you are fine holding dreamers hostage for your own crass policy agenda. Disturbing...

#106 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-15 10:15 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