DACA must be restored rules federal judge
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Remember when Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts was shouted at (on ET Politics) when he sided with Obamacare .
Yes. And DACA will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, just as I said in what you quoted. Duh. Not sure how your comment impacts that statement, but whatever.
This BS will end as more conservative judges are appointed to the lower appeals courts! I have urged President Trump and will continue to urge him to fill all vacancies with conservative judges! Time to restore the rule of law back into our courts!
This "order" by a so-called federal judge is a variant of the judicial overreach/activism that Justice Thomas bitch-slapped the lower courts for when SCOTUS upheld Trump's travel ban. He threatened to deal with them if it continues so I hope they keep it up.
underlining added to the quote of your post are mine.
your argument sounds reasonable until one remembers that the law was originally written in 1792 when nothing moved faster than a horse, and only male property owners could vote. There was no standing Army or Navy and the airplane had not been invented, gay people could not marry. The House was left with the responsibility for determining nearly everything, the President with responsibility for carrying out the will of the House, and the appointed Senate for stepping in and saying "wait a god damn minute". The courts were there for settling disputes. Now we have a dysfunctional Congress and a mentally ill President who has populated his cabinet with sycophants.. The "...law as written" seems to have not anticipated the present situation.
underlining added to the quote of your post are mine.
your argument sounds reasonable until one remembers that the law was originally written in 1792 when nothing moved faster than a horse, and only male property owners could vote. There was no standing Army or Navy and the airplane had not been invented, gay people could not marry. The House was left with the responsibility for determining nearly everything, the President with responsibility for carrying out the will of the House, and the appointed Senate for stepping in and saying "wait a god damn minute". The courts were there for settling disputes. Now we have a dysfunctional Congress and a mentally ill President who has populated his cabinet with sycophants.. The "...law as written" seems to have not anticipated the present situation.
Ahhh. No.
DACA is a dispute about the powers of the president vis a vis congress. Loving Obama or hating Trump does not change the underlying constitutional issue.
I am not exactly sure what you are referring to in regard to the 1792 law. Whether it is the first naturally act a couple years before that or what. Just saying, I can't remember. In any case, your intent clearly is to give some impression that we are still operating under some law
that has not been updated since then, and that is not the case. It has been updated rather regularly since then - and no I am not going to post links for the obvious.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that Congress has authority over immigration and through the Supremecy Clause it has the final say over anything the states might do. The president has some authority to implement emergency measures related to national security or in areas where Congress/legislation has not spoken. Obama agreed with that and agreed that his own executive order was unconstitutional but figured he could get congress to act before it had to addressed by the court, wherein he would be in trouble.
Not liking what Congress has or has not done does not give a president the authority to counter that law through executive orders. He can issue executive orders to further the intent of Congress but that is a different matter altogether.
Any Supreme Court Justice who does not accept the supremacy of Congress in this area is not just taking a different opinion but is in open rebellion and should be impeached as provided for in the Constitution.
All of the lower court opinions are technically around procedural issues and motions and sufficiency of arguments required under the administrative procedures act etc, rather than on the constitutional issue so that does not necessarily apply to them- yet.
The laws of our land will constantly need amending and repealing as our society evolves. But you don't get to toss out the appointed separations of power because you don't like the politicians filling the congressional seats. Judges aren't there to make the law, they're there to interpret it.underlining added to the quote of your post are mine.
your argument sounds reasonable until one remembers that the law was originally written in 1792 when nothing moved faster than a horse, and only male property owners could vote. There was no standing Army or Navy and the airplane had not been invented, gay people could not marry. The House was left with the responsibility for determining nearly everything, the President with responsibility for carrying out the will of the House, and the appointed Senate for stepping in and saying "wait a god damn minute". The courts were there for settling disputes. Now we have a dysfunctional Congress and a mentally ill President who has populated his cabinet with sycophants.. The "...law as written" seems to have not anticipated the present situation.
The level of dysfunction in congress is an embarrassment. We need to find a way to move past this toxic political environment so that it can actually function as intended.
Until money is out of politics, the dysfunction will remain.
I'll act here as a judge would and "interpret" what you have written as you say judges should do.
You, dear plaintiff, have complained that one branch of government, The Executive, has usurped the power given by the Constitution to another, the Legislative. The court (myself in this case
) agrees with the plaintiff (you, in this case), the Executive has indeed acted ultra vires. As to the superfluous remark of the plaintiff, however, To Wit:"... you [the figurative "you"] don't get to toss out the appointed separations of power because you don't like the politicians filling the congressional seats.
The court will remind the plaintiff that the Executive may do what it likes so long as the Legislature allows it. To take unkind liberty with your words dear plaintiff, "...you [do] get to toss out the appointed separations of powers [when] you don't like the politicians filling the congressional seats ...[so long as you're allowed to by the Congress.]
That, I'm sorry to inform you, is the way our U.S. Constitution works as intended by the Founders, and with quite obviously unintended consequences.
The Court will remind the Plaintiff that it is not possible when drafting a law to foresee every possible future situation. Consequently laws that seemed quite perfect when drafted may become quite imperfect in the course of time. Among the several remedies for this unavoidable situation, such as, for example, armed revolt of the people, constant amendment of past laws by a cumbersome, uncertain process, etc., The Court has adopted a most practical and efficient solution, and left it up to the "Peoples House" to modify the laws as they see fit and to insist on their enforcement.
The Court has Spoken!