A Ludicrous Ruling That Trump Can’t End DACA

[WingNot]

by JOSH BLACKMAN   January 10, 2018 11:57 AM @JOSHMBLACKMAN The Supreme Court has reversed this judge’s DACA decisions before, and it will do so again.

On January 20, 2017, the executive power peacefully transitioned from President Obama to President Trump. At least one judge in San Francisco didn’t get the memo. Yesterday, Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to keep its predecessor’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in place. This remarkable 49-page order has all the aesthetics of a judicial decision but is, at heart, an amateur act of punditry. Judge Alsup paints the picture of a divided White House, wherein “the Chief Executive publicly favors the very program [his Administration] has ended.” Citing a “presidential tweet,” the court suggests that DACA’s recision “was contrived to give the administration a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall in exchange for reviving DACA.” These talking points could have been plagiarized from the MSNBC chyron. Such rhetoric in a judicial decision would have been unthinkable barely a year ago. But now it passes for the new normal. Once again, the judiciary has attempted to shackle President Trump from making his own judgments about how to exercise his own power. The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Alsup’s outlandish rulings on DACA before. And it will do so again.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455305/daca-court-ruling-trump-cant-end-daca

[ConservativeGranny]

Once again Trump's Tweets coming back to bite him. That and the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports DACA or not. He changes his story like his socks.

[WingNot]

Once again Trump's Tweets coming back to bite him. That and the fact that he can't seem to make up his mind whether he supports DACA or not. He changes his story like his socks.

Put your Trump Hate Boner back under your petticoat.  This is all on a liberal judge.  Blaming a Trump tweet for that asshats ruling is disingenuous, but par for the course for you.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

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

[WingNot]

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

Congress should put in an express lane for appeals of any of the ninth circus rulings.  It would save time and money.

[Suppressed]

Blaming a Trump tweet for that asshats ruling is disingenuous, but par for the course for you.

It was explicitly cited.

[Polly Ticks]

I usually hate hyper-emotional words like "Ludicrous!" in headlines, but in this case it certainly fits.  What a travesty.

[Concerned]

"President Donald Trump's tweets were once again used against him in court, after a federal judge in California on Tuesday blocked his administration from phasing out the Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy."

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1

[Frank Cannon]

"President Donald Trump's tweets were once again used against him in court, after a federal judge in California on Tuesday blocked his administration from phasing out the Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

Judge William Alsup, of the Northern District of California, cited several of Trump's tweets in his ruling, arguing that the president had demonstrated on Twitter that his decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was based on politics and a flawed legal premise rather than on the merits of the policy."

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-judge-has-once-again-used-trumps-own-tweets-against-him-in-court-2018-1

It doesn't matter what the President thought about this. It isn't a law. It was enacted by Janet Nepolitano passing out pamphlets to ICE. This woman has no authority with ruling on a "policy".

[WingNot]

It was explicitly cited.

Don't be obtuse. 

[Concerned]

It doesn't matter what the President thought about this. It isn't a law. It was enacted by Janet Nepolitano passing out pamphlets to ICE. This woman has no authority with ruling on a "policy".

And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again.  You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.

[GrouchoTex]

The ruling is insane.

It basically says that Trump (who uses EO in the narrow, more correct way, as defined, than Obama did), can't call DACA "illegal", like he did in his tweets, because the courts have not deterrmined "yet" whether  DACA is legal or not.

So, Obama's unconstitutional over-reach of DACA is law until the courts decide otherwise, because the Chief Executive (Trump) cannot determine the legality, but merely enforce, unless told otherwise be the court.

In other words, Obama can make un-enforcement of immigration "law" through DACA by EO, but Trump cannot change it until the court says Obama's EO was unlawful.

They are using the very thing that Obama has done to say Trump cannot do the same.

No logic.

And yes, the tweets were mentioned in the ruling.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the ruling, but the tweets were mentioned.
Mentioned with the dates of the tweets, as well.

[the_doc]

And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again.  You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.

Tweets or no tweets, if I were Trump, I would openly declare Judge Alsup's ruling to be in contempt of the Constitution.  I would publicly recommend that Judge Alsup be impeached for a high crime against the Constitution. 

[Frank Cannon]

And yet his own words, via tweet, were still used against him, yet again.  You might think it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter, but it mattered to this judge whether you like or not or whether you agreed with the decision or not.

And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.

[Oceander]

And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.

She is a duly appointed sitting federal judge. 

[Suppressed]

And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.

Then make her do it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The reasoning is insane and almost frightening: a President can make an arbitrary executive order and subsequent Presidents are not allowed to rescind that order.

Liberals judges are headed for a true Constitutonal crisis, a real one, not a fake one like the media likes to blab about it.

I could see them saying something like that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional or something insane like that. What happens then? That is how civil wars get started IMO.

[Oceander]

The reasoning is insane and almost frightening: a President can make an arbitrary executive order and subsequent Presidents are not allowed to rescind that order.

Liberals judges are headed for a true Constitutonal crisis, a real one, not a fake one like the media likes to blab about it.

I could see them saying something like that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional or something insane like that. What happens then? That is how civil wars get started IMO.

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. 

[RoosGirl]

I'm sure Judge Allwet would have ruled differently if it weren't for the Twit.

[truth_seeker]

And if it wasn't Twits, the judge would have pulled something else out of her ass. She has no authority on WH policies. None. She is an activist buying time for her criminal foreign national friends.

That is correct. If not the tweets, then something else. And if not Trump, had Cruz or any Republican done the same thing, tweets or no tweets it would be the same.

[GrouchoTex]

I'm sure Judge Allwet would have ruled differently if it weren't for the Twit.

I am sure you're point is correct, that she would have found something else.
The tweets, however, were used to bolster her (fallacious) argument.
Trump did give her some of the ammo to use against him, unfortunately.

[RoosGirl]

I am sure you're point is correct, that she would have found something else.
The tweets, however, were used to bolster her (fallacious) argument.
Trump did give her some of the ammo to use against him, unfortunately.

Trump is actually the twit I was talking about. 

[edpc]

This is the same judge who learned all about Java programming to be well versed in his ruling, then had it overturned anyway.

[WingNot]

This is the same judge who learned all about Java programming to be well versed in his ruling, then had it overturned anyway.

The One and only.

[Frank Cannon]

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.

It's not arbitrary if getting rid of it restores law and order. Actually keeping it in place is dangerous to legal citizens.