A Ludicrous Ruling That Trump Can’t End DACA

[Cyber Liberty]

Maybe so. But the tweets are objective evidence of Trumps bias and put a strong foundation under what might have been just speculative hokum.

Bias?  So what?  He's a President, not a judge.  If he wasn't biased he wouldn't have been elected.

[ConservativeGranny]

Good point. Every republican in my lifetime got the same treatment from the liberal left.

Does anyone seriously think if Trump backed down, humbled himself before his critics that anything would be different?

Everyone knew the horse thief was going to be hung at dawn. But what surprised the town folk was that the horse thief provided his own rope.

[Oceander]

Bias?  So what?  He's a President, not a judge.  If he wasn't biased he wouldn't have been elected.

Because that indicates that the decision was made on the basis of his bias, which is an arbitrary and capricious basis on which to make government policy, and that is forbidden by the Administrative Procedures Act when it comes to adversely affecting the interests of people. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Because that indicates that the decision was made on the basis of his bias, which is an arbitrary and capricious basis on which to make government policy, and that is forbidden by the Administrative Procedures Act when it comes to adversely affecting the interests of people.

Everything Trump does is arbitrary and capricious because he's Donald Trump.  It speaks for itself, and one does not need to be a Trump lover to see it.   When a Judge arrogates to himself exclusively what and how something adversely affects the interest of people, we no longer have a need for either of the other two branches of government.  This is how we get Judges deciding what the names of streets should be.

Show him the policy, and a Judge will show how it's arbitrary.  Heck of a way to run a railroad.

[Jazzhead]

I’m not saying the ruling is correct; however, the arbitrary and capricious standard under the Administrative Procedures Act - assuming it applies - applies generally to prevent adverse actions against persons, it doesn’t apply in the abstract.   Thus, if a policy is put into place in an arbitrary way, but doesn’t negatively affect discrete individuals in a concrete manner, then the standard probably wouldn’t apply.  However, once the policy is in place, it cannot be arbitrarily and capriciously removed if the removal would have adverse consequences to one or more discrete persons.  That is the case here.

Quoted for sound reasoning.   It is useful to remember that the judge's job isn't to frustrate the political will of the Administration, but respond to the complaint made by the plaintiffs.   Plaintiffs must have standing, which means they must be facing actual harm.   And one definition of harm that has typically been accepted by the courts is called detrimental reliance. 

As wrong and as unlawful as Obama's DACA order may have been,  hundreds of thousands of eligible individuals took advantage of it to apply for relief so they could work and otherwise exist "above ground".    The judge's order specifically provides that the Trump Administration can suspend/end the program for those who haven't yet applied.   But what of those who stuck their necks out - legally, professionally and personally - to apply for the relief?    The judge is saying those folks cannot be harmed while the litigation over the DACA program remains unresolved.   If they had applied for relief with the understanding they could periodically re-apply to reaffirm their status, they must be permitted to do so. 

Now folks here may be correct that this judge's ruling may be overturned on appeal - the Ninth Circuit does not have a good track record.   But,  rhetoric in the judge's opinion aside regarding Trump and his tweets,  he is promoting a very basic and very American view of fairness:  if one enters into a bargain and upholds his or her end of the deal, so should the other party.   

[Jazzhead]

Trump effed up the president’s power over immigration issues with his asinine tweets about Muslims, which I didn’t think would happen since border entry is a core executive function, but he did, the courts took the opening, and those rulings are still there.  So yeah, I think there’s a non-negligible chance that Trump screwed the pooch on this one too with his jackassed tweeting.

Oh, it's more than a non-negligible chance that Trump has hurt the Administration's legal position with his tweets.   The courts have provided him far less leeway on his proposals to bar travel from (some) Muslim-majority countries because they interpreted his tweets as reflecting his bias against Muslims, right or wrong. 

With regard to DACA,  I'm not sure his tweets have any real relevance, notwithstanding that they were cited by the judge.   The court on appeal likely won't address such dicta, but rather the legal principle of detrimental reliance, as noted in my post above.   

President Trump frustrates the heck out of me.   On matters of policy, he has delivered far more for conservatives than most of us had any hope to believe.   But as a head of state, he's been a complete embarrassment.

Keep in mind that the President of the United States has two roles - he is the head of government and the head of state.   Those roles are often split between two individuals -  in the UK, there's the prime minister who speaks for the government and the queen who speaks for the nation.   Trump speaks for our nation,  and I cringe every time he tweets about bleeding facelifts and bigger buttons.    Yes, I'm old fashioned - my idea of a President embodies such qualities as dignity, decorum and gravitas.   And Trump is none of those things.    Yes,  he is moving the ball forward on issues that are vitally important to me.   But his insufferable ego and temperament make me fear that all will be lost the next time the voters have the ability to speak their minds about Republicans and conservatives.

The bright side is that Trump's public meeting with Congressional leaders shows that he can change, or at least that he's enough of an actor that he can appear to change if need be.   I hope someone has enough influence with him to convince him that the way ahead - starting right now - is to project a more traditional and capable vision of Presidential leadership.         

[Oceander]

Everything Trump does is arbitrary and capricious because he's Donald Trump.  It speaks for itself, and one does not need to be a Trump lover to see it.   When a Judge arrogates to himself exclusively what and how something adversely affects the interest of people, we no longer have a need for either of the other two branches of government.  This is how we get Judges deciding what the names of streets should be.

Show him the policy, and a Judge will show how it's arbitrary.  Heck of a way to run a railroad.

[RetBobbyMI]

When the SCOTUS reverses decisions it should include instructions to execute some of these dirtbag judges.

If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.

They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.  Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.

[Cyber Liberty]

And you wonder why people detest lawyers and judges.

[Oceander]

If Ryan and his do nothing cronies would ever get off their duffs and start impeachment, then and only then will these radical leftist judges ever start looking over their shoulders.

That would set a really bad precedent that the democrats would exploit with abandon the next time they control Congress. 

[edpc]

They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.  Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.

Even if they were impeached and removed, they’d just end up in congress like Alcee Hastings.

[RetBobbyMI]

They'll never get the 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict.  Dems are unified in their hatred for Republicans.

Doesn't matter.  As long as there is impeachment proceedings in process, it will put them on the back burner.

[Jazzhead]

And you wonder why people detest lawyers and judges.

Why?   Is the pursuit of justice something you find detestable?    If you've entered into a valuable contract that the other party has just now yanked away,  wouldn't you appreciate the ability of a judge to force the other party to live up to the bargain? 

Judges rule on disputes over alleged harm to specific people.   Hundreds of thousands have changed their position on the basis of the relief afforded by DACA - including to expose themselves to potential deportation since they have registered themselves and their addresses with the government in good faith.   

Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?   

[RetBobbyMI]

That would set a really bad precedent that the democrats would exploit with abandon the next time they control Congress.

So. Are we just to sit back and do nothing because the other side may hit back?  ludicrous!

[Cyber Liberty]

Why?   Is the pursuit of justice something you find detestable?    If you've entered into a valuable contract that the other party has just now yanked away,  wouldn't you appreciate the ability of a judge to force the other party to live up to the bargain? 

Judges rule on disputes over alleged harm to specific people.   Hundreds of thousands have changed their position on the basis of the relief afforded by DACA - including to expose themselves to potential deportation since they have registered themselves and their addresses with the government in good faith.   

Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?

It's the way they twist the meanings of plain English words to achieve the desired results.  The same way you do.

An example in the manner you just did:  "So, @Jazzhead, why and when did you stop beating your wife?"

[Jazzhead]

It's the way they twist the meanings of plain English words to achieve the desired results.  The same way you do.

An example in the manner you just did:  "So, @Jazzhead, why and when did you stop beating your wife?"

How am I twisting words?   How is this not a case of detrimental reliance?   Do you disagree that these folks placed themselves at potential risk in order to enroll in the program?   Are they not entitled to a judge's fair pursuit of justice the same way you or I would be?     

[Oceander]

So. Are we just to sit back and do nothing because the other side may hit back?  ludicrous!

It would be foolhardy to impeach every judge who, in your subjective opinion, made a bad ruling.  The court system has two levels of review and is generally good at weeding out the worst errors.

[Cyber Liberty]

How am I twisting words?   How is this not a case of detrimental reliance?   Do you disagree that these folks placed themselves at potential risk in order to enroll in the program?   Are they not entitled to a judge's fair pursuit of justice the same way you or I would be?   

You said, "Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?"

I don't.  I refuse to have discussions with people who say shit like that to me.  Bye.

[Cyber Liberty]

It would be foolhardy to impeach every judge who, in your subjective opinion, made a bad ruling.  The court system has two levels of review and is generally good at weeding out the worst errors.

I don't think this is the only "Ludicrous" ruling this Judge has made.  Don't know for sure because I'm busy right now.

[Jazzhead]

You said, "Why do you believe these folks deserve to be screwed?"

I don't.  I refuse to have discussions with people who say shit like that to me.  Bye.

And you maligned my profession, and by implication the pursuit of justice.

And now you're too cowardly to respond?   Pathetic.   

[Oceander]

I don't think this is the only "Ludicrous" ruling this Judge has made.  Don't know for sure because I'm busy right now.

Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals?  If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals?  If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.

Yeah I'm not so sure impeaching would be effective. You'd still need 2/3rds of Senators to convict... good luck with that.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you really think the GOP would prevail if it started a judicial impeachment war with liberals?  If you think the federal judiciary is too liberal now, just wait until after that fight.

Of course the GOP would not prevail!  I said upthread they could not get 2/3 of the Senate to convict any liberal judge.  The Democrats would never permit it, even if the Judge has a stroke and literally has the mind of a child.  If Alcee Hasting was on the bench today, he would be safe and secure in that chair.

I don't have a solution other than for conservatives to get and hold the Executive office and a majority of the Senate, then wait for the existing Judges to croak.  It's how the Rats did it, and it wasn't done overnight.

[edpc]

And now you're too cowardly to respond?

I’ll answer it. 

First of all, they’re here illegally, no matter the circumstances.  Life can be unfair.  Also, at some point, people are going to need to stop leaving Mexico and be the agents of change the country so desperately needs.  As supposedly literate, educated people and professionals, they’re uniquely qualified for the task.  The only thing better than a 2K mile wall on the southern border is a stable, mostly self-sufficient nation as a neighbor.  We have one to the north.