Federal Judge Orders Complete Restart Of DACA

[Oceander]

You didn't answer the question.  Why is it a Federal Court issue?  Obama using EO to deliver an illegitimate law?  You can't use the Constitution to direct something not covered under it.  The thing should have just died.  How can a court rule on something outside of the Constitutional rights afforded to citizens?

To extra-paraphrase Pauli:  you didn’t ask a question. 

[driftdiver]

Yes, you do.

@Oceander

For all your twisting of words it's obvious to everyone with any sense that this judge issued the decision based on his politics.

As do many judges these days.  Sooner or later they will have to face an accounting with the citizens of this country.

[Chosen Daughter]

@Oceander

For all your twisting of words it's obvious to everyone with any sense that this judge issued the decision based on his politics.

As do many judges these days.  Sooner or later they will have to face an accounting with the citizens of this country.

Thank You!!!

[Oceander]

@Oceander

For all your twisting of words it's obvious to everyone with any sense that this judge issued the decision based on his politics.

As do many judges these days.  Sooner or later they will have to face an accounting with the citizens of this country.

Maybe he did.  In which case the fix is to appeal the decision up the chain of command to the circuit court. 

And if you want an actual reasoned, and (relatively) well thought out argument from r why the judge is wrong, I would recommend this blog post by patterico:  http://patterico.com/2018/04/25/federal-judge-to-hell-with-trump-long-live-barack-obamas-daca-program/

What I get tired of is the ersatz-apocalyptic nonsense being vomited on this thread.  The judge in this case, ruled on the basis that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Trump administration did not properly follow the law in making its decision to end the Obama EO because it didn’t adequately explain its finding that the Obama EO was illegal. 

If that finding is wrong, it should fail as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, which means that a reviewing court should be able to review it de novo, that is, without giving much deference to the trial judge’s decision. 

Judges make mistakes all the time, that’s why we have appellate courts.  If this judge is wrong, and I tend to think he is, then an appeal by the Trump administration should fix it. 

So, perhaps a little less hyperbole by all posting here, and a little more attention to detail, is in order.

[driftdiver]

Maybe he did.  In which case the fix is to appeal the decision up the chain of command to the circuit court. 

And if you want an actual reasoned, and (relatively) well thought out argument from r why the judge is wrong, I would recommend this blog post by patterico:  http://patterico.com/2018/04/25/federal-judge-to-hell-with-trump-long-live-barack-obamas-daca-program/

What I get tired of is the ersatz-apocalyptic nonsense being vomited on this thread.  The judge in this case, ruled on the basis that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Trump administration did not properly follow the law in making its decision to end the Obama EO because it didn’t adequately explain its finding that the Obama EO was illegal. 

If that finding is wrong, it should fail as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, which means that a reviewing court should be able to review it de novo, that is, without giving much deference to the trial judge’s decision. 

Judges make mistakes all the time, that’s why we have appellate courts.  If this judge is wrong, and I tend to think he is, then an appeal by the Trump administration should fix it. 

So, perhaps a little less hyperbole by all posting here, and a little more attention to detail, is in order.

These judges need to be held accountable.  That doesn't mean they need to be reversed on appeal.  It means they need to be tossed in jail for corruption.

Or maybe tar and feathers

[Chosen Daughter]

Maybe he did.  In which case the fix is to appeal the decision up the chain of command to the circuit court. 

And if you want an actual reasoned, and (relatively) well thought out argument from r why the judge is wrong, I would recommend this blog post by patterico:  http://patterico.com/2018/04/25/federal-judge-to-hell-with-trump-long-live-barack-obamas-daca-program/

What I get tired of is the ersatz-apocalyptic nonsense being vomited on this thread.  The judge in this case, ruled on the basis that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Trump administration did not properly follow the law in making its decision to end the Obama EO because it didn’t adequately explain its finding that the Obama EO was illegal. 

If that finding is wrong, it should fail as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, which means that a reviewing court should be able to review it de novo, that is, without giving much deference to the trial judge’s decision. 

Judges make mistakes all the time, that’s why we have appellate courts.  If this judge is wrong, and I tend to think he is, then an appeal by the Trump administration should fix it. 

So, perhaps a little less hyperbole by all posting here, and a little more attention to detail, is in order.

Now you explain.  And just as I said it was an illegal EO. 

[Oceander]

These judges need to be held accountable.  That doesn't mean they need to be reversed on appeal.  It means they need to be tossed in jail for corruption.

Or maybe tar and feathers

Attitudes like that are precisely why the Founders gave federal judges lifetime tenure, subject only to impeachment. 

This judge’s decision is not corrupt and is easily amenable to correction via normal judicial processes.  If the decision is wrong, the appeals court explains why, reverses the decision, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s decision.

[Oceander]

Now you explain.  And just as I said it was an illegal EO. 

No.  You said a lot more than that.  And quite frankly, a lot of what you said is nonsense.  The Constitution is not limited to just citizens, not by its terms and not by necessary implication. 

[driftdiver]

Attitudes like that are precisely why the Founders gave federal judges lifetime tenure, subject only to impeachment. 

This judge’s decision is not corrupt and is easily amenable to correction via normal judicial processes.  If the decision is wrong, the appeals court explains why, reverses the decision, and remands for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s decision.

That might hold weight if this wasn't such a blatantly political and wrong order.


Judges have been hiding behind this nonsense for decades and undermining the rule of law.

[Oceander]

That might hold weight if this wasn't such a blatantly political and wrong order.


Judges have been hiding behind this nonsense for decades and undermining the rule of law.

So now it’s a super-secret conspiracy that the whole federal judiciary is in on, and has been for decades.  Wow.

Do they get a super-secret decoder ring as well?

[Cyber Liberty]

So now it’s a super-secret conspiracy that the whole federal judiciary is in on, and has been for decades.  Wow.

Do they get a super-secret decoder ring as well?

The entire Judiciary IS in on it, but it's certainly no secret, so no decoder ring necessary. 

[Bigun]

So now it’s a super-secret conspiracy that the whole federal judiciary is in on, and has been for decades.  Wow.

Do they get a super-secret decoder ring as well?

It requires no grand conspiracy councilor.  Just human nature.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect
our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their
humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their
advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his
fellow citizens.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, vol.1, p.1

Lawyers are very good at determining what is in their self interest and what is not and are the only group I am aware of with the tools necessary to tilt the entire table in their favor.

[driftdiver]

So now it’s a super-secret conspiracy that the whole federal judiciary is in on, and has been for decades.  Wow.

Do they get a super-secret decoder ring as well?

@Oceander

No ring required.   They find rights that aren't in the Constitution and ignore those which are.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Thank God nothing of any consequence is up to you, then.

Well spoken as the scholarly lawyer you are.

Got any other gems that qualifies you as a member of the only profession that can interpret laws that govern us?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not so.  All that is required is that there be a certain number of minimal contacts with the forum, and the court will have jurisdiction.  See, e.g., International Shoe.

Once again, I see no power given them in that reference, and your opinions and statements does not change that fact.

You are making the case on lawyers.

[Oceander]

Once again, I see no power given them in that reference, and your opinions and statements does not change that fact.

You are making the case on lawyers.

Because you choose not to see anything that might conflict with your cherished ideological views.  God forbid anything should conflict with what your navel-gazing has convinced you must be true. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You cannot argue that laymen, such as you and I, have the same mastery of the law that someone trained and experienced in the practice of law would have. This does not mean that our perspective is without value, but we'd be fools not to acknowledge someone's expertise in the field given 3 years of law school and a life of practicing law. I don't see it as a "harumph"...what Bill Martin is saying...simply an assertion of the reality that it takes year's of study to claim a full understanding of the complexities of constitutional law. Its not different than discussing the rebuild of a car engine with a master mechanic...if its my engine I will certainly have an opinion on the topic but I'd be crazy to ignore the mechanics view...and to heavily weight his view. I certainly WOULD consult with other mechanics but would MOSTLY defer to their collective expertise.

Saying you and I are 'layman' seems you are relegating the legal profession to being some type of clergy.

Why?  Law is not some religious experience that the rest of us just cannot comprehend so we leave it to those having 'mastery of the law'.

Why portray those who might be able to write or speak well to being on some type of pedestal that other people cannot ascend?

Keep judges as lawyers.  There is no reason they populate the law-making branch of our government.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Because you choose not to see anything that might conflict with your cherished ideological views.  God forbid anything should conflict with what your navel-gazing has convinced you must be true.

You are still shooting blanks as you do not refute the evidence.  Your doctrine is to simply tear down opposition and distort their views rather than to answer.

[Oceander]

You are still shooting blanks as you do not refute the evidence.  Your doctrine is to simply tear down opposition and distort their views rather than to answer.

Whatever.   Why don’t you come back when you’ve completed first grade; then you might actually have something intelligible to say. 

So far, it’s all ideological blather untethered from reality. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

 

Maybe he did.  In which case the fix is to appeal the decision up the chain of command to the circuit court. 

And if you want an actual reasoned, and (relatively) well thought out argument from r why the judge is wrong, I would recommend this blog post by patterico:  http://patterico.com/2018/04/25/federal-judge-to-hell-with-trump-long-live-barack-obamas-daca-program/

What I get tired of is the ersatz-apocalyptic nonsense being vomited on this thread.  The judge in this case, ruled on the basis that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Trump administration did not properly follow the law in making its decision to end the Obama EO because it didn’t adequately explain its finding that the Obama EO was illegal. 

If that finding is wrong, it should fail as a conclusion of law, not a finding of fact, which means that a reviewing court should be able to review it de novo, that is, without giving much deference to the trial judge’s decision. 

Judges make mistakes all the time, that’s why we have appellate courts.  If this judge is wrong, and I tend to think he is, then an appeal by the Trump administration should fix it. 

So, perhaps a little less hyperbole by all posting here, and a little more attention to detail, is in order.

i read the piece you cited, and to be honest, it's essentially saying the same thing the non-lawyers are saying here.  It was a garbage decision.

1.  It's the court's framing of the question itself - "was Obama's action illegal under the APA", that was flawed.  The basis of Obama's EO was that he had the discretion as to how to enforce the law, and given how he chose to ecercise it, he had the discretion to grant some legal status to people who were not going to be targetted.  So for this judge to argue that EO can only be overturned if it was illegal ignores that it was based on a discretionary decision by a former President.

That is utter garbage, and even if the non-lawyers here lack the training to frame their criticism in the appropriate verbiage, the essence of their reaction is completely correct.  This is an outrageous, garbage decision for which impeachment is a perfectly valid (though politically unrealitic) option.  Either this judge is flat out stupid, and honestly does not understand the DACA is premised on a discretionary enforcement decision, or does understand but simply doesn't care.  There isn't a third option.

2.  Additionally, this trash jurist didn't even stay his national injunction pending appeal - only reconsideration.

This is a purely policy-driven decision.  He's a scumbucket who doesn't believe in Constitutional separation of powers. 

Either that, or he's literally too stupid to be a federal judge.

The proper response to this is appeal, but if the stay isn't extended during appeal, Trump should ignore the order and provoke a Constitutional crisis if necessary.

[Oceander]

i read the piece you cited, and to be honest, it's essentially saying the same thing the non-lawyers are saying here.  It was a garbage decision.

1.  It's the court's framing of the question itself - "was Obama's action illegal under the APA", that was flawed.  The basis of Obama's EO was that he had the discretion as to how to enforce the law, and given how he chose to ecercise it, he had the discretion to grant some legal status to people who were not going to be targetted.  So for this judge to argue that EO can only be overturned if it was illegal ignores that it was based on a discretionary decision by a former President.

That is utter garbage, and even if the non-lawyers here lack the training to frame their criticism in the appropriate verbiage, the essence of their reaction is completely correct.  This is an outrageous, garbage decision for which impeachment is a perfectly valid (though politically unrealitic) option.  Either this judge is flat out stupid, and honestly does not understand the DACA is premised on a discretionary enforcement decision, or does understand but simply doesn't care.  There isn't a third option.

2.  Additionally, this trash jurist didn't even stay his national injunction pending appeal - only reconsideration.

This is a purely policy-driven decision.  He's a scumbucket who doesn't believe in Constitutional separation of powers. 

Either that, or he's literally too stupid to be a federal judge.

The proper response to this is appeal, but if the stay isn't extended during appeal, Trump should ignore the order and provoke a Constitutional crisis if necessary.

If Trump tries to trigger a constitutional crisis over this, he’ll lose big time. Even I don’t think he’s that stupid.

[Cyber Liberty]

If Trump tries to trigger a constitutional crisis over this, he’ll lose big time. Even I don’t think he’s that stupid.

I agree.  This is not the hill to die on.

[Chosen Daughter]

I agree.  This is not the hill to die on.

I disagree.  He has lawyers he should mount the fight for his campaign promises.  The people voted for change not judicial bullying.

[XenaLee]

I agree.  This is not the hill to die on.

What is 'the hill to die on'?  What issue would be worth it in your view?

[INVAR]

What is 'the hill to die on'?  What issue would be worth it in your view?

I am coming to believe that the answer to that question when asked of most Republicans is 'none'.