Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

[Anagram]

So...all a judge has to do is say, "You didn't explain it good enough" and that's the end, right? LOL!!

No problem. The Supremes will decide.

It’s what the APA requires. Not the jusge’s fault.

 

[Mr Person]

So...all a judge has to do is say, "You didn't explain it good enough" and that's the end, right? LOL!!

The NYT article links to the decision. It's 60 pages long.

"LOL!!" indeed.



It's really quite strange to hear conservatives of all people complaining about the idea of the APA restricting agency action. It was put in place because people realized that agencies exercise rulemaking and decisionmaking authorities with the effect of law ("quasi-judicial" and "quasi-legislative" function). Without the APA, the President really could act as dictator. Instead, there's a complex web of procedures governing how agencies must carry out their functions and providing for judicial review.

You're mocking the idea of putting checks on the executive.

 

[Perotista]

Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

Once again, a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's numerous attempts to terminate the DACA program.

Related: U.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules - The New York Times

Regardless of what one thinks of DACA, for, against, indifferent. One needs to realize DACA was no more than an executive order. It wasn't legislation or anything akin to it. What these judges are doing is setting a precedence telling any future president that he can't revoke, rescind an executive order issued by a previous president unless the court concurs with the rescinding.

In a way what this is doing if the SCOTUS going along with these three judges is giving an executive order the force of legislation. A president shouldn't need a reason to issue an EO and he should not need a reason to revoke or rescind an EO. The courts indeed have the power to say whether an executive order is constitutional or not. But not whether a president can issue or revoke an executive order without the courts permission.

 

[Anagram]

Regardless of what one thinks of DACA, for, against, indifferent. One needs to realize DACA was no more than an executive order. It wasn't legislation or anything akin to it. What these judges are doing is setting a precedence telling any future president that he can't revoke, rescind an executive order issued by a previous president unless the court concurs with the rescinding.

In a way what this is doing if the SCOTUS going along with these three judges is giving an executive order the force of legislation. A president shouldn't need a reason to issue an EO and he should not need a reason to revoke or rescind an EO. The courts indeed have the power to say whether an executive order is constitutional or not. But not whether a president can issue or revoke an executive order without the courts permission.

It wasn’t an EO though. That’s causing quite a bit of confusion in this thread.

 

[Renae]

I don't think that's particularly relevant here though. The judge can only rule on what the government alleges. The government didn't allege in their reasoning that DACA had the same legal flaws as the expansion of DACA. Nor did they show any specific immigration act that DACA violated.

I've read the whole ruling now, and I have to say I agree with the judge that his hands were tied here. In the rescission memo and the documents mentioned in it, the government did not do a good job of showing that DACA was unlawful.

Numerous individuals and entities promptly sued, and federal judges in Brooklyn and San Francisco have issued orders blocking DACA rescission. Then, yesterday, U.S. District Judge John Bates issued an order that not only blocked rescission, but required the Trump administration to process new DACA applications unless it can explain — to the court’s satisfaction — that the original DACA memorandum was unlawful.

This is extraordinarily dangerous judicial nonsense. If the Obama administration was merely exercising its “prosecutorial discretion” — as it claimed it was — there is absolutely no law or authority stopping the next administration from undoing the change. None. And if the Obama administration’s action went beyond mere prosecutorial discretion, then it’s void for violating the APA. No administration has the power to issue new regulations via memorandum.

Yet Judge Bates held that rescinding a memorandum that was issued outside the bounds of the APA violated the APA. To issue that ruling, he had to do three things: (1) hold that he had the ability to review a change in prosecutorial discretion; (2) apply the APA only to the Trump change in discretion; and (3) hold that the Trump administration’s constitutional concerns — based in part on Supreme Court authority — did not sufficiently articulate a “rational basis” for the Trump memoranda.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/the-daca-decision-and-the-judicial-threat-to-the-rule-of-law/

I bring this up because I don't speak legealeze all that well and I will defer to those more versed in it. It appears at least from this source that your reading of the issue is not quite correct.

 

[ultmd]

DO you realize how many of the federal courts decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court? DO you understand why?

In 1996, the 9th was SO badly corrupted that 27 of 28 of their decisions were overturned.
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=circuit_review

DO you have any idea what you are talking about?

First, on average, something like 70% of the cases appealed to the USSC are reversed.

Secondly, the 9th Circuit doesn't even have the highest reversal rate in cases appealed to the USSC over the last 10-15 years.

Lastly, why are you posting an article about the 9th Circuit......from a single year.......in the mid 1990's? There are PLENTY of references available that tally up the scorecards for every circuit in the country over the last 20+ years. You should look them up. You'll find that the 9th (which is a favorite whipping boy for right wingers) does NOT have the highest rate of reversal. That distinction belongs to the 6th Circuit, home to all of those badly corrupted "judicial activist" judges from Tn, Ky and Ohio (i.e. 11 Gopers and 5 Dems). And, just for FACTS SAKE, let's note that the NEXT most "badly corrupted" circuit in the country is the 11th, home to all of those "judicial activist" judges in the states of Georgia, Florida and Alabama.

So I must now ask you........What was your point? I think I know what you were TRYING to prove, but I think you might want to retract (or at least rethink) your argument and get back to me later, VanceMack.

 

[Mycroft]

The NYT article links to the decision. It's 60 pages long.

"LOL!!" indeed.



It's really quite strange to hear conservatives of all people complaining about the idea of the APA restricting agency action. It was put in place because people realized that agencies exercise rulemaking and decisionmaking authorities with the effect of law ("quasi-judicial" and "quasi-legislative" function). Without the APA, the President really could act as dictator. Instead, there's a complex web of procedures governing how agencies must carry out their functions and providing for judicial review.

You're mocking the idea of putting checks on the executive.

A 60 page pile of bull**** judicial activism is still bull****.

The use of the APA is bull****. The APA applies to regulations that agencies propose and establish. It has nothing to do with Executive orders.

This judge's ruling is going to be tossed in the trash by the Supremes.

 

[VanceMack]

DO you have any idea what you are talking about?

First, on average, something like 70% of the cases appealed to the USSC are reversed.

Secondly, the 9th Circuit doesn't even have the highest reversal rate in cases appealed to the USSC over the last 10-15 years.

Lastly, why are you posting an article about the 9th Circuit......from a single year.......in the mid 1990's? There are PLENTY of references available that tally up the scorecards for every circuit in the country over the last 20+ years. You should look them up. You'll find that the 9th (which is a favorite whipping boy for right wingers) does NOT have the highest rate of reversal. That distinction belongs to the 6th Circuit, home to all of those badly corrupted "judicial activist" judges from Tn, Ky and Ohio (i.e. 11 Gopers and 5 Dems). And, just for FACTS SAKE, let's note that the NEXT most "badly corrupted" circuit in the country is the 11th, home to all of those "judicial activist" judges in the states of Georgia, Florida and Alabama.

So I must now ask you........What was your point? I think I know what you were TRYING to prove, but I think you might want to retract (or at least rethink) your argument and get back to me later, VanceMack.

:lamo

You actually think you refuted my argument by pointing out just how many federal court cases are vacated and that as bad as the 9th is, they arent the worst.

Thanks for playing.

 

[notquiteright]

Yes and kill it without any review whatsoever. No, because Congress explicitly has granted the president the right to deny aliens or any class of aliens admission, plus the EO was put into effect and not withdrawn by the president. exactly, he's making up law, these people were never legally in the United States and the DACA was supposed to be only a temporary measure. It was not a pardon or amnesty. No one has forgotten such a thing, what is frustrating is that the people elected a new president and some judge is trying to stall that president's agenda because he politically disagrees and is hoping the appeals take longer then the next election cycle. Irrelevant

Congress did pass a law back in 1952 (the height of the red menace scare- Truman vetoed it as unsavory and going against the rule of law we are supposed to stand for- congress over road the veto to give the President a power he didn't ask for or want and has remained virtually unused until a bigot gained the Oval Office through the Regressive party) But this law has never been challenged, again because it has been gathering dust. Now it will be challenged and the judge is the first step.

Far from being political this judge is recognizing the problems the DACA removal presents. Not waiting for a new President but rather not allowing an unchallenged law to be used for so sweeping an effect. That Congress passed a law doesn't mean it's Constitutional, they have passed several laws of late that failed before the Supreme Court.

DACA isn't amnesty, it appears to the 'keep em out crowd' as such but that is due to Congress refusing to settle the issue, so temporary is being drug out for far too long.

Trump using DACA as a bargaining chip and to bait his minority support is relevant... it is what he does... eace

 

[ultmd]

When a judge steps outside the law and makes his own law that is judicial activism.

This is just right wing/talk radio nonsense. Who decides what constitutes "stepping outside the law"? You? Other self-appointed "constitutional conservatives" like you? That's what judges do. Be honest. What you really mean by "stepping outside of the law" is simply ANY judicial decision that deviates from conservative/repubican political doctrine.

Judges do not have the power to make or create or change law.

That's not the issue here. Your objection is to the interpration of existing law, which is PRECISELY what judges "do".

The only thing they can do is rule whether the law or action is constitutional.

That's precisely what they've done, thus far. Again, the problem for most conservatives is that they believe that any ruling that does not subscribe (or submit) to THEIR personal ideology..................is "unconstitional". The Right has proven, time and time again, that they are perfectly willing to ignore the Constitution and completely disregard all of their professed "small government" and "strict consructionist" beliefs.........when doing so benefits their cause, politically (or socially or economically).

If the passing of DACA by EO was constitutional then the removal of DACA by EO is constitutional. the president doens't have to justify his reasoning for removing it just as obama didn't have to justify his reasoning for putting it in place

Read the ruling. It's hard to discuss and debate things when one side disregards available facts in favor of talking points and ideological dogma.

 

[Anagram]

A 60 page pile of bull**** judicial activism is still bull****.

The use of the APA is bull****. The APA applies to regulations that agencies propose and establish. It has nothing to do with Executive orders.

This judge's ruling is going to be tossed in the trash by the Supremes.

DACA was not established by executive order. This has nothing to do with an executive order. It deals with DHS memos implanting and then rescinding DACA. It is absolutely under the authority of the APA.

The only EO dealing with DACA was by Obama in 2014 expanding it. It was halted from being implemented by a federal court and is not at issue in this case.

 

[ultmd]

:lamo

You actually think you refuted my argument by pointing out just how many federal court cases are vacated and that as bad as the 9th is, they arent the worst.

Thanks for playing.

No, I think I asked you to clarify your earlier obtuse response.

Posting an article about the 1996 9th Circuit Court's reversals was just dumb.

And shallow.

You can try again, if you like.

My guess is that you're done. If you had something of substance to say in rebuttal, you'd have posted it in your response, above.

 

[apdst]

Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

Once again, a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's numerous attempts to terminate the DACA program.

Related: U.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules - The New York Times

The Judicial system doesn't decide what's "capricious". It decides constitutionality.

These judges have fallen off their ****ing rockers. :lamo

 

[VanceMack]

No, I think I asked you to clarify your earlier obtuse response.

Posting an article about the 1996 9th Circuit Court's reversals was just dumb.

And shallow.

You can try again, if you like.

My guess is that you're done. If you had something of substance to say in rebuttal, you'd have posted it in your response, above.

Actually that article completes suports my position. When you have a bunch of judges...and I mean a LARGE bunch of judges that make known unconstitutional findings, you have judicial activism. There is a reason why the 9th has the reputation that it has. Anyone that has a pulse and a measurable IQ understands that. The question then is why would anyone be stupid enough to argue against it.

 

[apdst]

DACA was not established by executive order. This has nothing to do with an executive order. It deals with DHS memos implanting and then rescinding DACA. It is absolutely under the authority of the APA.

The only EO dealing with DACA was by Obama in 2014 expanding it. It was halted from being implemented by a federal court and is not at issue in this case.

What branch of government did DACA originate in?

 

[sangha]

I must ask: Do you believe DACA, which was a suspension of the enforcement of Federal Law passed by Congress as to certain groups of people, was a proper exercise of executive power? I realize that you may like the results on the basis of your political ideology, but in principle, do you think it is proper for a President to order the enforcement of Federal Laws suspended? Or just Federal Laws that you do not like?

Was it an improper exercise of executive power when other presidents did it, or is only improper when done by a president you do not like?

https://www.aclu.org/other/letter-regarding-executive-authority-grant-administrative-relief

 

[Anagram]

What branch of government did DACA originate in?

The executive. That doesn't make it an executive order. If it did then the APA wouldn't apply to anything.

 

[Mycroft]

DACA was not established by executive order. This has nothing to do with an executive order. It deals with DHS memos implanting and then rescinding DACA. It is absolutely under the authority of the APA.

The only EO dealing with DACA was by Obama in 2014 expanding it. It was halted from being implemented by a federal court and is not at issue in this case.

DACA was ended by Executive Order.

This judge isn't ruling on the establishment of DACA.

That's why this judge spouting "APA!!" is bull****.

 

[Anagram]

DACA was ended by Executive Order.

This judge isn't ruling on the establishment of DACA.

DACA was ended by Acting Secretary Elaine Duke's memo.

 

[apdst]

The executive. That doesn't make it an executive order. If it did then the APA wouldn't apply to anything.

That means the president can shut it down.

 

[Felis Leo]

Was it an improper exercise of executive power when other presidents did it, or is only improper when done by a president you do not like?

https://www.aclu.org/other/letter-regarding-executive-authority-grant-administrative-relief

Yes. I believe that if any President uses his executive authority to suspend the enforcement of a law passed by Congress which has not been repealed by Congress or struck down as unconstitutional by the Federal Courts (or allows an administrative agency to do so), it is violative of the President's duties of office.

 

[Anagram]

That means the president can shut it down.

It's means it's subject to the APA. Congress passed the APA so the president's administration can't enact and rescind policies whenever they want to.

In this case that means that by law, the Trump administration must provide reasoning that is not arbitrary and capricious in order to properly rescind it.

 

[Mycroft]

DACA was ended by Acting Secretary Elaine Duke's memo.

No. She sent a memo to the DHS staff.

Sessions is the one who announced Trump's decision.

 

[Anagram]

No. She sent a memo to the DHS staff.

Sessions is the one who announced Trump's decision.

Sessions letter was advisory. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0904_DOJ_AG-letter-DACA.pdf

It was not an executive order.

 

[Mycroft]

It's means it's subject to the APA. Congress passed the APA so the president's administration can't enact and rescind policies whenever they want to.

In this case that means that by law, the Trump administration must provide reasoning that is not arbitrary and capricious in order to properly rescind it.

Every President enacts and rescinds policies. Heck, Obama changed policies concerning Obamacare whenever he felt like it.