Federal judge orders Trump to restart DACA even though DACA is NOT a law!!!

[tsuke]

Well, if they found no reason to stop Obama from enacting the EO in the first place, they saw nothing unconstitutional in it. (Also may have been an issue of legal standing). In this instance, in reversing it a judge found the reversal to be unconstitutional / capricious.

I agree with you that this is not statute by law...my point in my post was exactly that - it doesn't have to be for courts to determine its constitutionality.

This is one of those cases.

when you say capricious you are giving the judiciary the right to strike down laws that it believes is not necessary. They should not have that power. If you give them the other 2 branches are nearly worthless.

also keep in mind you are giving this power to a judiciary that will be stacked with conservatives. Trump doesnt give a shit about the judiciary and is perfectly willing to let the federalist society select all the nominees.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Well, if they found no reason to stop Obama from enacting the EO in the first place, they saw nothing unconstitutional in it. (Also may have been an issue of legal standing). In this instance, in reversing it a judge found the reversal to be unconstitutional / capricious.

I agree with you that this is not statute by law...my point in my post was exactly that - it doesn't have to be for courts to determine its constitutionality.

This is one of those cases.

The board is still waiting for you to show us where the constitution gives courts the authority to decide what is constitutional.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

when you say capricious you are giving the judiciary the right to strike down laws that it believes is not necessary. They should not have that power. If you give them the other 2 branches are nearly worthless.

Yes indeed. Judges need to produce LEGAL arguments not simply say "the president acted capriciously".

It really is amazing that we even debate this. Trump is simply trying to enforce the immigration laws that obama refused to enforce. And a judge tells trump he can't do that!

 

[Chloé]

when you say capricious you are giving the judiciary the right to strike down laws that it believes is not necessary. They should not have that power. If you give them the other 2 branches are nearly worthless.

Yeah, and that is a fair point but do you not agree that they should be the ultimate authority / arbitrator on what is and isn't constitutional? Not the necessity of it, as much as the validity. Whether you agree with it on principle or not surely the apparatus and methodology works, no?

also keep in mind you are giving this power to a judiciary that will be stacked with conservatives. Trump doesnt give a shit about the judiciary and is perfectly willing to let the federalist society select all the nominees.

I am okay with conservatives on the bench - if they are qualified for the position then let them have at it. I am not a hypocrite on the issue.

I do think that he does care about the judiciary in one regard though ; every time a decision does not go his way he tends to burst a blood vessel in anger over them.

 

[Flash]

thats the entire point. They shouldnt have to make the case. Once you do that the judiciary becomes a policy making body.

They have always been a policy making body going back to Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Md. It is unavoidable. If the SC decides what speech, press, religion, and searches can be restricted and which cannot that is making policy when they interpret the Constitution.

 

[Althea]

thats the entire point. They shouldnt have to make the case. Once you do that the judiciary becomes a policy making body.

Nope. You don't get to violate the Constitution. If trump is trying to be 'arbitrary and capricious', then the court is the last line of defense. Same as the Muslim ban.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

They have always been a policy making body going back to Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Md. It is unavoidable. If the SC decides what speech, press, religion, and searches can be restricted and which cannot that is making policy when they interpret the Constitution.

What you call "interpreting the constitution" other people call writing laws and the constitution says judges cannot do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

What is really crazy about this ruling is that judge bates is ORDERING trump to NOT enforce our immigration laws.!!!! He says --obama didn't enforce immigration laws so neither can trump.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

Nope. You don't get to violate the Constitution. If trump is trying to be 'arbitrary and capricious', then the court is the last line of defense. Same as the Muslim ban.

So tell us how trump is violating the constitution. Trump is merely trying to enforce the immigration laws , something the constitution says he must do. Article 2 section 3 says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

 

[Flash]

What you call "interpreting the constitution" other people call writing laws and the constitution says judges cannot do that. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states."

What is really crazy about this ruling is that judge bates is ORDERING trump to NOT enforce our immigration laws.!!!! He says --obama didn't enforce immigration laws so neither can trump.

The courts are not writing laws when they determine what constitutional powers the legislative branch has to legislate. If a legislative body makes a law restricting our free speech, the courts have the power to determine if that restriction is constitutional. They are not writing the law, only determining if the legislative body has the power to do so. They are not saying the legislative body has to restrict threats, libel, or obscenity, they are only ruling the legislature has the power to restrict those types of speech but not other types.

While the legislative power rests with Congress, that power is restricted; otherwise, Congress can pass any laws it chooses without regard to its constitutional powers. There is no other logical or rational way to make that decision.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

The courts are not writing laws when they determine what constitutional powers the legislative branch has to legislate. If a legislative body makes a law restricting our free speech, the courts have the power to determine if that restriction is constitutional. They are not writing the law, only determining if the legislative body has the power to do so. They are not saying the legislative body has to restrict threats, libel, or obscenity, they are only ruling the legislature has the power to restrict those types of speech but not other types.

While the legislative power rests with Congress, that power is restricted; otherwise, Congress can pass any laws it chooses without regard to its constitutional powers. There is no other logical or rational way to make that decision.

You're saying someone has to act as check on congress and that someone is the supreme court. So who acts as check on the supreme court? THINK

 

[Flash]

You're saying someone has to act as check on congress and that someone is the supreme court. So who acts as check on the supreme court? THINK

THINK? Most people don't have to think about this--they already know the checks on the federal judiciary. All three branches are checked by the others.

The checks on the federal courts include:
1. Presidential nomination of federal judges
2. Senate confirmation of judicial nominees
3. Congressional power to propose constitutional amendments
4. Congressional power to impeach and convict federal judges (the only officials to be both impeached and convicted have been judges)
5. Congressional power to set the jurisdiction of federal courts
6. Power of 2/3 of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention

The courts do not have the only check on the powers of Congress. The president also has the veto power over legislation.

 

[Althea]

So tell us how trump is violating the constitution. Trump is merely trying to enforce the immigration laws , something the constitution says he must do. Article 2 section 3 says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

DACA recipients broke no laws.

 

[Althea]

Obama - "I refuse to enforce immigration laws."

Judge Bates - "That means trump cannot enforce immigration laws either."

Obama- "Boehner refuses to bring a bipartisan Senate bill to the floor of the House because it will pass overwhelmingly. I'll have to act alone until a real speaker is chosen"

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

THINK? Most people don't have to think about this--they already know the checks on the federal judiciary. All three branches are checked by the others.

The checks on the federal courts include:
1. Presidential nomination of federal judges
2. Senate confirmation of judicial nominees
3. Congressional power to propose constitutional amendments
4. Congressional power to impeach and convict federal judges (the only officials to be both impeached and convicted have been judges)
5. Congressional power to set the jurisdiction of federal courts
6. Power of 2/3 of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention

The courts do not have the only check on the powers of Congress. The president also has the veto power over legislation.

HAHAHA. None of those are checks on the supreme court except number 4 and even that is just theoretical. Name one time a supreme court judge has been removed by the impeachment process. Answer - zero. In the 230 years we have lived under this constitution it has never happened and it never will happen and the SC knows it.

 

[Text Drivers are Killers]

DACA recipients broke no laws.

Hey einstein. They broke the law when they came here. They are NOT innocent just because obama said he won't prosecute them. THINK

 

[Althea]

Hey einstein. They broke the law when they came here. They are NOT innocent just because obama said he won't prosecute them. THINK

Wrong

 

[jimmymccready]

HAHAHA. Now that is truly the stupidest post in history.

It matters immensely whether DACA is a law or not. And BTW - judges have no authority to decide what is constitutional. THINK, you silly twit.

Thanks for showing you have no clue about our Constitution. Yes, the judges do decide such things as constitutionality, and they have for more than 200 years.

 

[Flash]

HAHAHA. None of those are checks on the supreme court except number 4 and even that is just theoretical. Name one time a supreme court judge has been removed by the impeachment process. Answer - zero. In the 230 years we have lived under this constitution it has never happened and it never will happen and the SC knows it.

Those are all checks. Impeachment and conviction have removed several federal judges and although none have been Supreme Court justices they can be; Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House.

One of those checks that actually reversed a Supreme Court opinion was the 16th Amendment. The decisions of Gorsuch in the last term showed how presidential selection of justices can influence court decisions.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Eh? Whether it is law (by statute) is rather irrelevant. The judiciary determines what is constitutional, not "what is passed by Congress" only.

this is how you fail..........you might want to look up US Supreme Court precedent about how they said ANYTHING congress passes is presumed constitutional.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

They have always been a policy making body going back to Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Md. It is unavoidable. If the SC decides what speech, press, religion, and searches can be restricted and which cannot that is making policy when they interpret the Constitution.

there's only one body that can overrule the supreme court........we the people.