• 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!

Court orders full restoration of DACA program

The corruption in our judicial branch is clearly all the way to the supreme court. I always knew the corruption was widespread on the local level. So sad that the highest court of the land is corrupt as well..
 
Anagram said:
This case has nothing to do with an executive order. Quite literally nothing.

The judiciary absolutely has standing to decide this case because it deals entirely with agency action implemented by the Department of Homeland Security with Acting Secretary Duke's memo which wound down the DACA policy implemented by the Department of Homeland Security with former Secretary Janet Napolitano's memo. All agency action is legislatively subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

It is simply untrue that this court had no authority to review the agency decision and that it was dealing with either President Trump or President Obama's executive orders.
Click to expand...

Nope. The APA comes into play with establishing and imposing new administrative actions, not rescinding them. For example, it comes to play when the FCC wants to grant itself the power to enact net neutrality. Where it does not apply is the opposite, where a regulatory power is rescinded.
 
Fishking said:
Nope. The APA comes into play with establishing and imposing new administrative actions, not rescinding them. For example, it comes to play when the FCC wants to grant itself the power to enact net neutrality. Where it does not apply is the opposite, where a regulatory power is rescinded.
Click to expand...

That is just astoundingly untrue. For example, rule-making subject to judicial review and, requiring notice-and-comment is defined in the statute as "formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." Agency actions which are subject to judicial review under Section 706 are defined in Section 551 as "includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act."

Very broad definition which even includes failure to act. The rescission of former policy absolutely is agency action subject to judicial review.

A relatively good explanation: here.

As a matter of administrative law, an agency may only rescind a final rule that has been published in the Federal Register by undertaking a new notice-and-comment rulemaking and providing a rational justification for why the rule is no longer appropriate. This higher standard can limit an administration’s ability to completely abandon an existing regulatory scheme; however, it permits an administration to implement well-reasoned alternatives. Rescissions are subject to “hard look” review under the APA and require “a reasoned analysis for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.”
Click to expand...
 
Anagram said:
That is just astoundingly untrue. For example, rule-making subject to judicial review and, requiring notice-and-comment is defined in the statute as "formulating, amending, or repealing a rule." Agency actions which are subject to judicial review under Section 706 are defined in Section 551 as "includes the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act."

Very broad definition which even includes failure to act. The rescission of former policy absolutely is agency action subject to judicial review.

A relatively good explanation: here.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So it appears to me that this would be a case of legislative overreach. It's not their lane to regulate the functioning of the executive in such a manner.
 
Fishking said:
You have it backwards. What you should be saying is, "I strongly disagree with undermining our legislative system by writing a policy that undermines the law of the land when your job as the executive is to enforce the laws."

Only the legislative branch can change or make amendments to laws and that is the only foul that would occur. When the judicial branch is dead-wrong, due to activism, they should be slapped down. They are not legislators either, yet they continually act like them. There is only one legislative branch, and that is the Congress.

It's actually very simple. An EO is merely a policy governing how they run the various branches of the executive branch (that's what they should be, anyways). There is no condition on changing policy so long as it doesn't violate the law. They are not laws.
Click to expand...


You are making the Obama argument the US District Court in Texas threw out, in 2015.

I say the OB argument but the ruling was on the DHS rules and regs establishing Dapa. The Texas court said policy actions are subject to the APA. Same as laws are subject to APA. This was new but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the district court. Scotus gave a pass to the OB-DHS appeal to them.

Two courts now have said the same thingy concerning Trump, DHS and Daca. The shorthand for the lengthy and tangled legalese is: Rule of Law.

Concerning your view of the courts and the Constitution, it is rhetorical, emotional, ideological and it is radical. In a word, angry. Agitated might be another that could be applicable. Most of us continue to agree btw Potus should obey the laws and to faithfully see to it the laws are administered. That might be rather droll in contrast but then again it's meant to be so. Geez, I sound more conservative each day around here. Imagine that.
 
Mr Person said:
:lamo







The APA governs executive agencies in their quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, and other functions. It is a constraint the legislature placed on executive agencies.
Click to expand...

Are you laughing at yourself?

And don't alter my posts, ever again.
 
Vetplus40 said:
Announcing and end to the program - with no freaking clue what to do next, is why clueless, ego maniacal people like Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Washington DC.

Thank goodness for Federal Judges with enough backbone to do their jobs still exisit. It is obvious that the "spineless" Republicans in Congress don't have enough backbone to stand up for American values and oppose the Trump dictatorial agenda.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Vetplus40 said:
Announcing and end to the program - with no freaking clue what to do next, is why clueless, ego maniacal people like Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Washington DC.

Thank goodness for Federal Judges with enough backbone to do their jobs still exisit. It is obvious that the "spineless" Republicans in Congress don't have enough backbone to stand up for American values and oppose the Trump dictatorial agenda.
Click to expand...

Yes thank God for un-elected ignorant a-holes to rule us. "Liberalism" again raises its ugly flag.

It's so much more convenient to have all three branches of government rolled into one un-elected, un-removable clown.
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
That's not true at all. The DACA implementation through Janet Napolitano's memo, this one, stands on it's own. It is not connected to, nor does it need an executive order to survive.

Trump's DHS is well within it's rights to end the program. It attempted to do so through, Acting Secretary Duke's memo, here. It cites Trump's executive order as a reason for why it is doing what it is doing, but it did not need Trump's executive order to exist and if Trump were to rescind his Executive Order No. 13,768, this action instituted by Duke would not suddenly not exist.

Because this is an independent agency action, it is reviewable under the APA, and there must be a legitimate, non-arbitrary and capricious reason behind it.

You are misstating how administrative law works when you are only talking about the executive orders here.
Click to expand...

That is because that is what the judge ruled on. The judge didn't rule on Dukes memo. He ruled on the EO repeal.
He stated that the president didn't give a good enough reason to repeal it.

He doesn't have too. I think you are talking about something completely different than what the judge actually ruled on.
 
I have been vocal about this and, I have been keeping my eyes on this daca debacle. The United States Supreme Court should step in and, give an ruling on this because I truly believe that this has gotten out of hand The judges who are calling for a full restoration of daca program should be ashamed of themselves! The bottom line is stop playing the Charlie and the democrats roulette! Let’s figure something out besides please pull a card. Thus, the democrats are not caring about immigrants they look at it as votes!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Most of these people apparently are CNN or MSLSD viewers who think that the country should be more politically correct and, be forced to adopt the culture that we are letting in. Here’s the bottom line honest question. “what is so hard to accept the four bullet points that President Trump is asking for?” why should we have this “Lottery program”? If the democratic base cannot defend it? What is the point of it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
TheRepublican said:
Most of these people apparently are CNN or MSLSD viewers who think that the country should be more politically correct and, be forced to adopt the culture that we are letting in. Here’s the bottom line honest question. “what is so hard to accept the four bullet points that President Trump is asking for?” why should we have this “Lottery program”? If the democratic base cannot defend it? What is the point of it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Politically correct is just Right Wing speak for "Why can't I insult everyone who isn't dumb like me?"
 
ludin said:
That is because that is what the judge ruled on. The judge didn't rule on Dukes memo. He ruled on the EO repeal.
He stated that the president didn't give a good enough reason to repeal it.

He doesn't have too. I think you are talking about something completely different than what the judge actually ruled on.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking about something completely different than what the judge ruled on.

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Batalla-Vidal-v-Nielsen-updated-pi-order-2018-02-13.pdf

On September 5, 2017 Defendants announced they would gradually end the DACA program. [cite to Elaine Duke's memo]... Plaintiffs in the above captioned cases promptly challenged Defendants' decision on a number of grounds, including, most relevant for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order, that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
Click to expand...

The judge clearly ruled on Duke's memo. That is what plaintiffs challenge. If you read the opinion, you will find no reference whatsoever to the executive order because that is not what was challenged.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
I posted his opinion no where in his opinion did he site the memo, but ol well.
He will get overturned just like the judges in CA will.
Click to expand...

Except in literally the first paragraph and entirely throughout it. I just posted it. I’ve read it.
 
danielpalos said:
All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id.
Click to expand...

You mean like the passport and a visa that are already required by law?

https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/de...required-for-foreign-nationals-(international

A foreign national or alien entering the U.S. is generally required to present a passport and valid visa issued by a U.S. Consular Official, unless they are a citizen of a country eligible for the Visa Waiver Program, or are a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. or a citizen of Canada.

The Visa Waiver Program allows foreign nationals from certain countries to be admitted to the U.S. under limited conditions and for a limited time without obtaining a visa.The foreign national must arrive on an approved carrier (if coming by air or sea), staying no more than 90 days, for pleasure/medical purposes/business, and be able to prove they are not inadmissible. The foreign national is still required to have a passport.
Click to expand...
 
No. I mean a federal id., if they are foreign nationals, in the US.

Any foreign nationals in the US should be fined or feed, into a federal id., in the US.
 
danielpalos said:
No. I mean a federal id., if they are foreign nationals, in the US.

Any foreign nationals in the US should be fined or feed, into a federal id., in the US.
Click to expand...

Why would that be better than having to have a passport and a visa?
 
danielpalos said:
They may not have any id. Any foreign national in the US should be required to have federal id., in the US. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808.
Click to expand...

When a foreign nationalist comes to America they are required to carry those documents at all times. If they refuse to carry those what makes you think they'll carry a federal ID?
 
danielpalos said:
They may not have any id. Any foreign national in the US should be required to have federal id., in the US. Entry into the Union is a federal obligation since 1808.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a passport and a visa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom