• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruliing scrutiny might finally start occuring.

L

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judge's DACA ruling seen by some legal scholars as problematic, report says | Fox News

These activist judges have finally brought the chickens home to roost.
it is about time these judges started being evaluated on their rulings.

“Increasingly, legal scholars are concerned about the way national injunctions are transforming the relationship between the courts and the political branches,” he said.

This judge had no more constitutional power to stop trumps repeal of the EO than the man in the moon.
The president has the constitutional power to roll back EO's.

Whether the judge likes it or not his job is to uphold the constitution.
 
It's time for a lot of these judges to learn that they aren't above the law and if they can't, they will no longer be judges.
 
ludin said:
Judge's DACA ruling seen by some legal scholars as problematic, report says | Fox News

These activist judges have finally brought the chickens home to roost.
it is about time these judges started being evaluated on their rulings.

“Increasingly, legal scholars are concerned about the way national injunctions are transforming the relationship between the courts and the political branches,” he said.

This judge had no more constitutional power to stop trumps repeal of the EO than the man in the moon.
The president has the constitutional power to roll back EO's.

Whether the judge likes it or not his job is to uphold the constitution.
Click to expand...

DACA was nothing more than an executive order which bypassed congress. Some say the laws on immigration gave the president the power to exempt the so called dreamers. Sort of like prosecutors discretion. I didn't think so, but that was indeed possible. But revoking an executive order is certainly within any president's right and is constitutional. This ruling may indeed go all the way to the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see how they rule on it. Rule against letting a president revoke or rescind a previous president's EO is akin to giving the president the power of congress, to legislate from the Oval Office. That would be a terrible precedence no matter how one feels about DACA and the dreamers.
 
ludin said:
Judge's DACA ruling seen by some legal scholars as problematic, report says | Fox News

These activist judges have finally brought the chickens home to roost.
it is about time these judges started being evaluated on their rulings.

“Increasingly, legal scholars are concerned about the way national injunctions are transforming the relationship between the courts and the political branches,” he said.

This judge had no more constitutional power to stop trumps repeal of the EO than the man in the moon.
The president has the constitutional power to roll back EO's.

Whether the judge likes it or not his job is to uphold the constitution.
Click to expand...

On the DACA EO that is not so clear. It is my understanding that Trump has not yet rescinded/replaced the DACA EO and has only announced his intention to do so later (on 3/1/18?). The problem, IMHO, is that too much law is made by the executive often with the blessing of congress which leaves "implementation details" up to (executive controlled) department, agency and program heads.

Obviously, if Obama had the constitutional power to make the DACA/DAPA EOs then Trump has the power to undo or modify those EOs. Judges should stick to interpreting the law rather than trying to make it just as the executive should stick to enforcing the law instead of making/changing it because "congress refuses to act".
 
Perotista said:
DACA was nothing more than an executive order which bypassed congress. Some say the laws on immigration gave the president the power to exempt the so called dreamers. Sort of like prosecutors discretion. I didn't think so, but that was indeed possible. But revoking an executive order is certainly within any president's right and is constitutional. This ruling may indeed go all the way to the SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see how they rule on it. Rule against letting a president revoke or rescind a previous president's EO is akin to giving the president the power of congress, to legislate from the Oval Office. That would be a terrible precedence no matter how one feels about DACA and the dreamers.
Click to expand...

I agree on that which is why this ruling is so far out of whack. while EO's can be contested for constitutionality more than a couple of Obama's EO's were overturned unless there is something that is in
the EO that is unconstitutional then it can be revoked.

there is nothing in this EO that would be unconstitutional.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
On the DACA EO that is not so clear. It is my understanding that Trump has not yet rescinded/replaced the DACA EO and has only announced his intention to do so later (on 3/1/18?). The problem, IMHO, is that too much law is made by the executive often with the blessing of congress which leaves "implementation details" up to (executive controlled) department, agency and program heads.

Obviously, if Obama had the constitutional power to make the DACA/DAPA EOs then Trump has the power to undo or modify those EOs. Judges should stick to interpreting the law rather than trying to make it just as the executive should stick to enforcing the law instead of making/changing it because "congress refuses to act".
Click to expand...

The repeal was delayed in order to allow congress time to get a proper fix in. as usual congress is a dysfunctional disaster.
EO's were designed to clarify existing law where their might be some ambiguity in how a department should operate.

the president can make an EO as long as it does not exceed his power. DACA/DAPA (which was ruled unconstitutional) are examples of the president exceeding his authority.
yes trump has the authority to repeal this regardless of what the judge thinks. His job is to rule whether it is constitutional not based on his bias opinion which is what he did.

in fact his ruling is so grossly out of it he should be reprimanded by the higher courts. judges have gained too much power in this country more power than what they should have.
 
ludin said:
The repeal was delayed in order to allow congress time to get a proper fix in. as usual congress is a dysfunctional disaster.
EO's were designed to clarify existing law where their might be some ambiguity in how a department should operate.

the president can make an EO as long as it does not exceed his power. DACA/DAPA (which was ruled unconstitutional) are examples of the president exceeding his authority.
yes trump has the authority to repeal this regardless of what the judge thinks. His job is to rule whether it is constitutional not based on his bias opinion which is what he did.

in fact his ruling is so grossly out of it he should be reprimanded by the higher courts. judges have gained too much power in this country more power than what they should have.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) was my point: if the DACA EO repeal was delayed then Obama's EO is still in full effect - thus the judge is correct.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) was my point: if the DACA EO repeal was delayed then Obama's EO is still in full effect - thus the judge is correct.
Click to expand...

no the judge put an injunction on the EO so even when the date gets here they cannot lose their status. which is opposite of the bill and frankly not correct.
 
ludin said:
no the judge put an injunction on the EO so even when the date gets here they cannot lose their status. which is opposite of the bill and frankly not correct.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that a DACA "waiver" is good for two years from its date of issue. What the judge ordered is that those DACA "waivers" must continue to be re-issued (renewed?) until the EO expires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom