- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,202
- Reaction score
- 62,504
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Post what you want read or, better yet, only the important parts.
DACA program should be fully restarted, federal judge rules | Fox News
What gives any judge the power to say that the POTUS must have a 'rational explanation' for simply rescinding a prior EO? The judge is saying that it is unlwful to rescind an EO if that judge does not like (accept?) the reason for doing so. This boils down to the judge saying "I don't like your attitude so I find you guilty".
I'll make the parts of my post that address that red.
That is not what they said. That is not what this or the prior decision is about. Why are you posting this?
You're usually much better than that.
"Executive order" literally DOES NOT APPEAR in the decision. DHS is an executive agency. It MUST obey congress's intent and words, expressed in the Administrative Procedure Act. This case is about whether DHS followed the APA in repealing the memo that was what ACTUALLY implemented DACA.
The executive order is not what ACTUALLY implemented DACA.
Please, people, PLEASE read the decision. At least do that.
And then the other one:
Bolded: NO! Not anywhere so simple.
I will have to try to find the time, maybe around 11pm tomorrow, to read this one. BUT, the last decision I looked at on this subject (and my own memories from studying the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), though that isn't what I deal with these days) made perfectly clear that that is the wrong analysis.
Obama started the process to enact DACA via executive order, yes. A president in a general sense can rescind/modify/override another president's prior executive order, yes. But that wasn't the point last time.
That's because the actual program was made law by the promulgation of a memo by the relevant agency (DHS? Sorry, it's been a 14h workday and I'm ....er....'relaxing'). The agency has to follow the APA in enacting or modifying a promulgated rule. The APA is complicated. The last suits were about failure to comply with the APA in rescinding the memo. They weren't about presidential authority with EOs. And the decisions didn't say "Trump can't do that", they rather kicked the issue back tot he agency to rescind it while following the rules.
There may be other concerns. I vaguely recall a body of cases dealing with situations where an agency, in following some legislative or executive fiat, creates a legal expectation/right/benefit of sufficient worth that due process demands certain protections when the removal of that expectation/right/benefit is altered.
Or....it could be something else entirely. The answer is, as always, "it depends"
So I'll have to glance at this thing, at least, at some point. But I seriously doubt it's as simple as EO powers.
.
I don't know how else to say it but you are 100% wrong. You obviously didn't even read the decision. You obviously don't know about the APA. And for one who holds forth on the constitution, you obviously missed the fact the entire body of law (staring quite a long time ago) addressing the rise of the "4th branch of government" - that body of executive agencies necessary to our function but which exercise quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers, and which either way are subject to congressional oversight. Congressional oversight which took the specific form of passing the APA long ago and giving judcial review to agency actions in certain circumstances.
The executive order is not what implemented DACA. That's not how it works. The executive order directed the agency under the control of the chief executive to implement it. It therefore had to follow the APA, and was subject to judicial review in certain respects. And anybody who has ever uttered the slightest peep regarding worries of government control had damn well better like the APA.
I probably need to leave before I say something rude enough to get points.
_______________
I just....
Ugh.
But I don't know how else to communicate once met with a proud argument from ignorance that continues after explanation, and in its face; 2+2=5, and not only does it equal five, but 2+2=5 is a fourrier transformation of the second law of thermodynamics!
:fart