San Francisco Judge Barred Trump's Recindment of DACA

[Philo-Publius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-trump-administration-on-rescinding-daca.html

A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from turning back the Obama-era DACA program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation, Reuters reported, citing the judge’s ruling.

I simply must say that the U.S. Court system is truly the most powerful branch of government. Only a federal Judge can completely defy the presidential powers guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and not face legal consequences. This fucking judge deserves to be hanged for treason.

 

[Scheme]

So in essence, a federal judge supports breaking the law.

Goodbye America, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[Fawlty]

This fucking judge deserves to be hanged for treason.

"the program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision unfolds."

You might be overreacting a little tbh.

 

[HomerThompson]

"the program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision unfolds."

You might be overreacting a little tbh.

Just a skosh.

 

[Cold Front]

"the program must remain in place while litigation over Trump’s decision unfolds."

You might be overreacting a little tbh.

It's not a overreaction to say that judges who simply make up shit from the bench, in support of an ideology which is un-American, are treasonous.

 

[KILL KILL]

This fucking judge deserves to be hanged for treason.

So it's treason then

 

[ShadowRun]

Surprised it wasn't a judge from HI

 

[Joe]

that damn treasonous constitution

 

[Cold Front]

that damn treasonous constitution

Even according to Obama, at least for the first several years of his presidency, his EO approving DACA was unconstitutional.

That's why he wanted until the very end of his presidency to sign it. By that time, he didn't care about the Constitution anymore than you do.

 

[FIMN]

Has anyone here who disagrees with the judges ruling actually read the ruling?

Or is that a dumb question?

 

[Trotsky]

Has anyone here who disagrees with the judges ruling actually read the ruling?

Or is that a dumb question?

That is a dumb question.

These morons promote tyranny on the delusion of resisting it, all because reading is hard and reflexively thinking the guy they like is right is easy.

 

[Fawlty]

It's not a overreaction to say that judges who simply make up shit from the bench, in support of an ideology which is un-American, are treasonous.

An ideology? Are you not well?

 

[FIMN]

That is a dumb question.

 

[Cold Front]

An ideology? Are you not well?

Apparently, I'm doing much better than you are.

Obama himself said for several years of his presidency that he could not act unilaterally on immigration ... you know, because of the Constitution and all that. From the link:

"How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works.""​

Obama changed his mind after his re-election and signed the EO on DACA because he no longer felt bond by the Constitution. Political ideology overruled the former Constitutional law professor's view of the Constitution.

 

[tehend]

Seems weird to keep the government to deport illegal immigrants.

 

[Fawlty]

Apparently, I'm doing much better than you are.

Obama himself said for several years of his presidency that he could not act unilaterally on immigration ... you know, because of the Constitution and all that. From the link:

"How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works.""​

Obama changed his mind after his re-election and signed the EO on DACA because he no longer felt bond by the Constitution. Political ideology overruled the former Constitutional law professor's view of the Constitution.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but DACA is already tied up in court, which is in turn tied up while Congress and the President and the Justice Department are trying to figure out what to do. There is absolutely nothing treasonous about what this judge did.

 

[Cold Front]

I'm sorry to break it to you, but DACA is already tied up in court, which is in turn tied up while Congress and the President and the Justice Department are trying to figure out what to do. There is absolutely nothing treasonous about what this judge did.

Yes, it's tied up in courts because we have too many liberal ideologues who know their political side depends on this clearly unconstitutional display of executive power being shepherded through.

When you pick politics over the Constitution under the aegis of your judicial robes, you are a traitor.

 

[kenetics]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-trump-administration-on-rescinding-daca.html



I simply must say that the U.S. Court system is truly the most powerful branch of government. Only a federal Judge can completely defy the presidential powers guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and not face legal consequences. This fucking judge deserves to be hanged for treason.

I agree with the judge lol. Everyone else ancestors came here to murica. The power to be then made laws to keep everyone else out. Gtfo lol.

 

[Fawlty]

Yes, it's tied up in courts because we have too many liberal ideologues who know their political side depends on this clearly unconstitutional display of executive power being shepherded through.

When you pick politics over the Constitution under the aegis of your judicial robes, you are a traitor.

The best legal minds in the country, the legislative branch, and the executive branch, are all pretty divided on what to do about this situation, and about what the limits of executive power are for deferred action. This is a tough one. All three branches are trying to get the others to deal with it, hot potato that it is, both politically and legally. Sometimes we notice that things are difficult, and don't call people who disagree with us treasonous, or call for violence against them.

 

[Trotsky]

Apparently, I'm doing much better than you are.

Obama himself said for several years of his presidency that he could not act unilaterally on immigration ... you know, because of the Constitution and all that. From the link:

"How do we know? Because even Obama admitted it – repeatedly.

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works.""​

Obama changed his mind after his re-election and signed the EO on DACA because he no longer felt bond by the Constitution. Political ideology overruled the former Constitutional law professor's view of the Constitution.

Firstly, this isn't a holding on the constitutionality of DACA. This is a stay on unusually burdensome federal action until legal issues are resolved.

Secondly, so that we are clear on your thoughts, it is your opinion that the sovereignty of the judiciary should defer to the reneged opinion of a former president?