President needs a judge's OK to issue an EO

Ok, I double checked. Every quote made after he instituted DACA referenced the fact that he is limited by what he can do. That's the closest he ever comes to saying that DACA is unconstitutional.

Prove me wrong.

 

Look at tyou, avoiding the issue at hand.

 

Just informing a fellow member about a PF rule.

 

So.. you think the judiciary has the power to require the President to submit an EO for review before it can be issued?
Why?

 

Having authority to do something doesn't mean you can do it for any reason. Trump can fire the FBI director, but not because he refuses to give him a hand jov. Just as an example

 

A president can fire an FBI director anytime he chooses and for any reason he wants.

 

Technically yes but some reasons would be illegal. He can also ignore this judges ruling and open up the federal govt to lawsuits.

 

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'll repeat: "A president can fire an FBI director .......for any reason he wants." His reason for firing can't be and isn't illegal.

True, ignoring a judges ruling can create problems. Trump will not ignore a ruling, like Obama's DOJ did in the DAPA case. He'll just bide his time until the supreme court (or the appeals court in the NY case) strikes it down -- on simple WTF legal grounds.

 

I double checked. Turns out you are correct.

 

checks and balances, the courts are able to block EO's if they feel they are unconstitutional

 

DACA wasn't even created with an Executive Order. President Obama just told Homeland Security to make up the program, and they issued a memo. That's it.

So it never had any legal basis. And now, some judges think to get rid of the program is illegal!

 

The courts are not permitted to block an ending of an EO. How stupid is that?

 

Terrible, awful argument. Whether or not the original EO was constitutional or not, there's nothing to support delaying the sunsetting of the original EO,it is it's very defining moment. If anything, Trump temporarily extended it to let Congress pass legislation settling it once and for all. A district court judge has ZERO say so in the matter. The quicker this reaches the SCOTUS the better. Activist judges need to be removed from power when they've overreached their given authority.

 

You know, you are 100% correct!

 

No rush.......... we'll wait til Mullers done, then goose step him off to Trial.............

 

For the second time in two months, a federal judge has stepped into an intense political fight over immigration policy, issuing an injunction that orders the Trump administration to keep in place the embattled program known as DACA, which protects young undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The nationwide injunction, issued on Tuesday by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, came one month after a court in California also ruled that the administration needed to spare DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Judge Garaufis’s ruling in many ways echoed the one issued by Judge William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco. But it also offered additional reasons for why DACA should remain in place as the case continues through the courts, and it detailed the harms that its repeal would cause to young immigrants and others.

On Sept. 5, the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, announced that the Trump administration planned to end DACA gradually, saying that the program had been unconstitutionally established by President Barack Obama in 2012. Under the rollback, the Department of Homeland Security is still considering pending DACA applications and renewal requests from recipients who filed by Oct. 5. But the department plans to reject all applications after that.

After Mr. Sessions’s announcement, a coalition of immigration lawyers and a group of 16 Democratic state attorneys general, led by Eric Schneiderman of New York, filed separate but linked lawsuits in Brooklyn, claiming that the repeal of DACA was an “arbitrary and capricious” decision largely motivated by a “racial animus” against Latinos. In his ruling, Judge Garaufis agreed with the lawyers that the rollback was arbitrary and capricious; but while he has vociferously criticized Mr. Trump from the bench for his anti-immigrant tweets and public statements, the judge made no mention of racial animus in his findings.

Under the ruling, the government will now have to maintain DACA as it was before the Sept. 5 announcement. But it does not have to accept new applications, Judge Garaufis wrote, and it can decide renewal requests on a case-by-case basis. While Judge Garaufis noted that he was “sympathetic” to those who were unable to apply for DACA before Sept. 5, he added that the injunction would not apply to them.

The immigration lawyers who brought the case nonetheless hailed his ruling as a victory.

“During a week when the Senate is having a battle over immigration, we now have two judges saying that what happened on Sept. 5 was not justified,” said Marisol Orihuela, a lawyer from the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School. “This sends a clear message to lawmakers to act and pass something.”

After the decision, Mr. Schneiderman said in a statement that the judge had affirmed the states’ position. “Federal courts from coast to coast have now reviewed the record and reached the same conclusion,” Mr. Schneiderman said. “President Trump’s decision to rescind DACA was illegal.”

In a statement, Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for the Justice Department, reiterated arguments that the government had made before Judge Garaufis, saying that DACA was “an unlawful circumvention of Congress” and that the Department of Homeland Security had “acted within its lawful authority.”

“Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens,” Mr. O’Malley added. “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”

Since the Trump administration’s decision to end the program, Judge Garaufis wrote, more than 100 DACA recipients a day have been losing their protected status — a number, he noted, that could rise to as many as 1,400 a day once the program officially ends on March 5. All of them could face deportation, he said; some may face the loss of health care, imposing burdens not only on the immigrants themselves, but also on public hospitals. Employers will be hurt as DACA recipients lose their jobs, Judge Garaufis added, “resulting in staggering adverse economic impacts” that could include up to $800 million in lost tax revenue.

Ending DACA would also have “profound and irreversible” social costs, Judge Garaufis said, as hundreds of thousands of recipients are separated from their families. “It is impossible to understand the full consequences of a decision of this magnitude,” he wrote.

Though he has repeatedly said that he would prefer Congress, not the courts, fix DACA, Judge Garaufis has from the start of the case had tough words for the government in general and for Mr. Trump specifically. At a hearing in January, he slammed Mr. Trump for his “recurring redundant drumbeat of anti-Latino commentary.”

“This isn’t ordinary,” Judge Garaufis said. “In this country, in over 250 years, it’s extreme, it’s recurrent and it’s vicious.”

At the same hearing, Judge Garaufis also took a shot at Mr. Sessions, who had rebuked him at a speech in October for an earlier remark the judge had made calling the repeal of DACA “heartless.” Citing the speech, Judge Garaufis said in open court that Mr. Sessions “seems to think that courts don’t get to have their own opinions.”

In his ruling on Tuesday, Judge Garaufis based his decision to keep DACA in place for now on the Administrative Procedure Act, which forbids the government from acting arbitrarily or capriciously in changing federal policy. He noted that lawyers for the government had initially claimed that DACA was ended out a fear that the program would be struck down as illegal, much as a federal court in Texas had done in 2015 with a similar program known as DAPA, which protected the parents of young immigrants.

But, Judge Garaufis wrote, “the administrative record does not support defendants’ contention that they decided to end DACA for this reason.” In fact, he added, the government had showed “a failure to explain their decision” at all.

 

Mueller's not been charged with anything............."yet".

 

Your initial sentence is the proper title for the rest of your post.

 

Oh really? For a counselor, you've gotten just about everything wrong that you've predicted from a legal prospective since I've read your posts. Pretty sad when a layman is pounding you on your own turf.

 

This is a judge that believes his unelected black robe usurps the constitution -- he gets to rule based on his opinion with no regard, if he chooses, to the written law passed by the only body that has authority to pass written law -- Congress. "It's mean!"
Tough, little man; so is sending a bank robber to prison.

 

Trump's travel ban is still unconstitutional.

 

Thanks for bringing that up!

 

Nope. Trump ended it

 

BS...........Trump ended TRUMP'S extension of DACA that he gave congress 6 months to fix.

 

What law did Trumps EO violate that Obamas didnt?