Judge’s Radical Ruling Just Essentially KILLED THE RULE OF LAW In America

[rangerrebew]

Judge’s Radical Ruling Just Essentially KILLED THE RULE OF LAW In America

April 25, 2018| by V. Saxena

It’s being described as the “most radical opinion ever to surface from the corrupted judiciary in modern history.”


On Tuesday a U.S. district judge essentially destroyed the rule of law in America by decreeing that illegal immigrants possess the “right” to force President Donald Trump to violate federal immigration laws.

Judge John Bates ruled that the president “could not legally end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, arguing that Trump would have to begin reissuing temporary visas again,” according to The Daily Wire.

“He called the decision to end DACA ‘arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful.'”

https://downtrend.com/vsaxena/judicial-radicalism/

[INVAR]

Judge’s Radical Ruling Just Essentially KILLED THE RULE OF LAW In America

It's been officially dead since Obama due specifically to the Republican Party's complicity in refusing to hold egregious affronts to the rule of law accountable outside of kabuki theater hearings followed by exonerations in advance.

Now they are precedent, on the precipice of being institutional.

So - as I have said before, the Federal Government has zero legitimate authority to govern a free people.  All it has are their agents to put guns to our heads to force us to comply with bullshit decrees like this one.

[txradioguy]

He called the decision to end DACA ‘arbitrary and capricious'

Arbitrary and capricious...why our own Liberal TBR legal scholar used just those words today in describing Immigration Law and the powers Congress has to set immigration law in the Op/Ed about how Gorsuch blew it in his decision to vote with the Liberal black robes on the SCOTUS to give resident aliens due process.  Something for the last 200+ years they have NEVER had in this country.

 

[INVAR]

Arbitrary and capricious...why our own Liberal TBR legal scholar used just those words today in describing Immigration Law and the powers Congress has to set immigration law in the Op/Ed about how Gorsuch blew it in his decision to vote with the Liberal black robes on the SCOTUS to give resident aliens due process.  Something for the last 200+ years they have NEVER had in this country.

 

So the question becomes is he a PAID Leftist sent to troll this board, or is he a True Believer of the Liberal-Left bullshit he tries to pass off here as 'Conservative" and he just gets his talkling-points from the DU and the Leftist media?

[txradioguy]

So the question becomes is he a PAID Leftist sent to troll this board, or is he a True Believer of the Liberal-Left bullshit he tries to pass off here as 'Conservative" and he just gets his talkling-points from the DU and the Leftist media?

@INVAR I'm going with true believer.

[Oceander]

Arbitrary and capricious...why our own Liberal TBR legal scholar used just those words today in describing Immigration Law and the powers Congress has to set immigration law in the Op/Ed about how Gorsuch blew it in his decision to vote with the Liberal black robes on the SCOTUS to give resident aliens due process.  Something for the last 200+ years they have NEVER had in this country.

 

“Arbitrary and capricious” is the test for whether an administrative action, such as implementing or terminating an administrative program, complies with the requirements of the Administrative  Procedures Act.  It’s a legal term of art, not “talking points”.

[txradioguy]

“Arbitrary and capricious” is the test for whether an administrative action, such as implementing or terminating an administrative program, complies with the requirements of the Administrative  Procedures Act.  It’s a legal term of art, not “talking points”.

I know what it is O.  I just found it amusing that our resident Lib was using the same exact words about an immigration case.

[driftdiver]

Didn't a court rule that DACA was unlawful?

Why aren't these judges fired and run out of the country?

[txradioguy]

Why aren't these judges fired and run out of the country?

@driftdiver

Because they have lifetime appointments.  They can't be fired and are impervious to the consequences of their rulings.

One of the issues that has been discussed in a possible Article V Convention of States is a Constitutional amendment that removes the lifetime appointment to the bench of Federal Judges...to include the Supreme Court.

Decisions like this make that type of amendment much more appealing.