Federal judge reinstates DACA
-
@Axtremus said in Federal judge reinstates DACA:
@George-K said in Federal judge reinstates DACA:
By what authority does a federal judge empower one executive order, but not another?
By Constitutional authority. Some executive orders are legal/constitutional, some executive orders are not. The federal courts system sort out which is which when there is dispute.
That's interesting. I thought the legislature was supposed to make laws, pen and phone notwithstanding. But without descending into whataboutism and executive orders, I fail to see how an executive order by a president cannot be overturned by another president. Explain that logic to me.
@George-K said in Federal judge reinstates DACA:
... I fail to see how an executive order by a president cannot be overturned by another president. Explain that logic to me.
It goes back to the Constitution and established law. When one executive order leads to an outcome that is constitutional/legal while the reversing of it leads to violation of some parts of the constitution or established law, you get the situation where an executive order cannot be overturned.
For the DACA case specifically, this is laid out by SCOTUS' majority opinion, see this PDF file. The crux there is that the attempted reversal ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the one that dealt with the executive order itself, and that was decided back in June 2020.
The more recent court case referenced in your opening post does not address the validity of the executive order itself, but dealt with the circumstances under which some changes have been implemented by the DHS -- those changes were ordered by "Acting Secretary" Nick Wolf, whom the court has judged to have been appointed to that position unlawfully. Since Nick Wolf was appointed to the position unlawfully, Nick Wolf's orders are reversed.
-
@George-K said in Federal judge reinstates DACA:
... I fail to see how an executive order by a president cannot be overturned by another president. Explain that logic to me.
It goes back to the Constitution and established law. When one executive order leads to an outcome that is constitutional/legal while the reversing of it leads to violation of some parts of the constitution or established law, you get the situation where an executive order cannot be overturned.
For the DACA case specifically, this is laid out by SCOTUS' majority opinion, see this PDF file. The crux there is that the attempted reversal ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act. That's the one that dealt with the executive order itself, and that was decided back in June 2020.
The more recent court case referenced in your opening post does not address the validity of the executive order itself, but dealt with the circumstances under which some changes have been implemented by the DHS -- those changes were ordered by "Acting Secretary" Nick Wolf, whom the court has judged to have been appointed to that position unlawfully. Since Nick Wolf was appointed to the position unlawfully, Nick Wolf's orders are reversed.
-
Let me translate that for you. What Ax is saying is that if activist judges don't like what a sitting president does, because they were all suck ass with the president whose executive order they liked, they will do what they damn well please and write a bunch of legalese bull shit the democrat True Believers can recite, so shut up.
-
As I recall, Trump wanted the legislature to deal with the issue, which is how it should have been done. But, the legislature did nothing. So, it's not that Trump was against DACA, he just didn't want it continued via executive order. Of course, it was twisted around that Trump was against DACA. My boy Ax will correct me if I'm off on the details. Personally, I supported DACA and when I was on the board, I even wrote a resolution which passed unanimously, including even our Mormon conservative.
