- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The absence of any constitutional knowledge by federal judges is stunning
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:19 pm to 995webmaster
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:19 pm to 995webmaster
quote:
Federal judges know a would-be dictator when they see one.
Every morning looking in their mirror
0
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:20 pm to udtiger
quote:
The absence of any constitutional knowledge by federal judges is stunning
They know. But, they're liberals. They don't give a frick.
For them "what they think" = "the law as it stands".
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:21 pm to 995webmaster
quote:
Federal judges know a would-be dictator when they see one.
You are most wise, my child. You have learned your lessons well. Go forth with revolutionary fervor and smash this White Racist nation-state.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:28 pm to MizzouBS
quote:
The courts can overturn EO’s. Obama had a EO overturned and President Lincoln had a EO overturned as well. Your theory about two centuries and recent history of EO’s is incorrect. Congress can overturn EO’s, but is difficult because most of the people in congress don’t want to go against their parties president.
So...just so I get your argument...
Congress can overturn an EO
Court can overturn an EO
BUT THE EXECUTIVE CANNOT "OVERTURN" (RESCIND) AN EO?
That's your point?
Really?
The reason those EOs were overturned by the Court were because they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL - either overstepping authority under the Constitution, or was contrary to a written law.
Nowhere has a court ever said that a subsequent president cannot rescind a previous EO.
This post was edited on 4/25/18 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:41 pm to udtiger
quote:
It is a fricking Executive Order
Actually, no. It is a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security, not an executive order.
Once it became finalized, it falls under the Administrative Procedure Act. The current administration has to follow those guidelines to remove it. This Act went into law in 1946.
Ironically, this was passed to keep a check on powers that had come into play due to the "New Deal" policies of the Great Depression.
The President is not part of the APA; however, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Immigration are.
quote:
Following the election of Donald J. Trump on November 8, 2016, questions have been raised as to whether and how a new President's administration can amend or repeal regulations issued by the previous administration. In short, once a rule has been finalized, a new administration would be required to undergo the rulemaking process to change or repeal all or part of the rule. If a rule has not yet been finalized, however, a new President may be able, immediately upon taking office, to prevent the rule from being issued. In addition to these administrative actions, Congress can also take legislative action to overturn rules.
In other words, because it was finalized, it has to go through the appeal process.
That is my interpretation of what I'm reading, at least. I could be mistaken on certain components, but the key part is that DACA was not an Executive Order.
That, and our government is a confusing quagmire of bureaucracy.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 12:46 pm to MizzouBS
quote:
The courts can overturn EO’s. Obama had a EO overturned and President Lincoln had a EO overturned as well. Your theory about two centuries and recent history of EO’s is incorrect.
It’s not that EOs can’t be overturned. It’s part of the checks and balances.
The problem is that Trump’s EO does nothing except remove a prior EO. There literally can’t be something against the constitution over that. Especially on a topic regarding handling non citizens within the borders.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:24 pm to udtiger
Just read the opinion. Essentially, the court found a way to attack Sessions' memo to rescind the program. Sessions made a bunch of blanket claims that DACA was not authorized by statute and must therefore be ended in his agency memo. In the D.C. circuit, when an agency cites its own legal determination for what is normally a discretionary action, that discretionary action becomes reviewable by the courts under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Long story short, if the Sessions memo had not accused the program of unlawfulness and instead just said "we're ending it for reasons of agency economy," then this court would have found for the government. The D.C. district clerks had to work very hard to thread the needle with local precedent on this one. The ultimate ruling here is not that Trump lacks authority to end DACA, but that Sessions must more precisely articulate his reasons for calling it unlawful, if that is indeed the basis for ending it. They have 90 days to fix their argument and try to cure this, which should not be too hard.
Notably, the court punted on all of the constitutional issues, preferring instead to find the violation of the APA and call it quits unless the government can cure it.
Long story short, if the Sessions memo had not accused the program of unlawfulness and instead just said "we're ending it for reasons of agency economy," then this court would have found for the government. The D.C. district clerks had to work very hard to thread the needle with local precedent on this one. The ultimate ruling here is not that Trump lacks authority to end DACA, but that Sessions must more precisely articulate his reasons for calling it unlawful, if that is indeed the basis for ending it. They have 90 days to fix their argument and try to cure this, which should not be too hard.
Notably, the court punted on all of the constitutional issues, preferring instead to find the violation of the APA and call it quits unless the government can cure it.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:27 pm to Volvagia
quote:
The problem is that Trump’s EO does nothing except remove a prior EO
It's not an EO though. Please read my previous post.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:32 pm to udtiger
I agree with others in this thread...these are just morally corrupt people who abuse their positions and their power
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:35 pm to skrayper
quote:
It's not an EO though. Please read my previous post.
It's a 60 page decision that none of them are going to read. I completely agree that DACA can be nixed, but this case is not about "how come Obama can EO DACA into existence and Trump can't EO erase it???" That is not what this ruling was about.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:38 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
It's a 60 page decision that none of them are going to read. I completely agree that DACA can be nixed, but this case is not about "how come Obama can EO DACA into existence and Trump can't EO erase it???" That is not what this ruling was about.
Well, the first post was all about why Trump isn't able to EO an Obama EO out of existence. That's what I am responding to - not if DACA should or should not be ended. Just that if you're complaining about judges blocking EOs, you should probably realize this isn't about an EO.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:41 pm to skrayper
But if the ACA is the core of what is happening here, it still doesn't apply.
Trump is entitled to a formal trial of the merits of his regulation unless his change is
Trump is entitled to a formal trial of the merits of his regulation unless his change is
quote:
"arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law."
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:43 pm to Presidio
quote:
meh, the "judge" has made his ruling.... let's see him enforce it.
Yeah who really cares. POTUS can just ignore him.
Hell Jefferson tried to ignore the Supreme Court.
Unless this goes to the Supreme Court Trump can keep moving along.
It's like when people get so excixted getting a Civil judgment against someone - good luck collecting against the poor.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:44 pm to udtiger
technically most executive orders are unconstitutional sooooo....
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:48 pm to skrayper
quote:
Well, the first post was all about why Trump isn't able to EO an Obama EO out of existence. That's what I am responding to - not if DACA should or should not be ended. Just that if you're complaining about judges blocking EOs, you should probably realize this isn't about an EO.
I was agreeing with you. Sorry that wasn't clear.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:51 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Trump is entitled to a formal trial of the merits of his regulation unless his change is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
Yeah, that is exactly what this court found. Sessions' memo rescinding DACA had a bunch of blanket legal conclusions in it that were not sufficiently explained, rendering the recission arbitrary and capricious. Sessions should have left the legal statements out completely.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:53 pm to Tigerlaff
quote:
Sessions should have left the legal statements out completely.
He really isn't good at his job.
We (Alabama residents) tried to warn people.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 1:53 pm to udtiger
quote:
The upside is that this should be a tremendous boon to the GOP for the midterms.
Not sure of your reasoning behind that. It was a federal judge appointed by Bush II.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 2:24 pm to texridder
Guy was on the fisa court. He is a swampy as they come. Nobody will care who nominated him. Everyone views activist judges as leftists.
Posted on 4/25/18 at 2:32 pm to 995webmaster
quote:
quote:
federal judges
Federal judges know a would-be dictator when they see one.
i don't like trump and i support daca, but the courts do not have constitutional authority to declare a reversal of an EO unconstitutional ... an EO is not a law, by any stretch of any definition - constitutionally speaking ... regardless of the personality of the person/party attempting to repeal it, the executive office has that right ...
at this point, i don't give a damn what either party does ... i just want the balance of power shifted away from the executive office and courts and back to congress ...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News